Disposed

Kumbara Sarvajanika Vidyarthi Nilaya Trust v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC29 Oct 2024WP/6902/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dispute over who is the allottee of a MUDA civic amenity site between two societies claiming to be the same 1949-50 registration. The court declined to decide the inter se dispute, held MUDA's restoration decision inures to whoever establishes allotment, directed resolution by suit with all parties arrayed, and restrained further commercial development or transfer of the property.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed: MUDA decision dated 18.12.2012 to inure to the 1949-50 allottee upon proof in suit; petitioner barred from further commercial development or transfer pending suit.

Kumbara Sarvajanika Vidyarthi Nilaya Trust Vs… — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:43558 WP No. 6902 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6902 OF 2013 (LB-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

KUMBARA SARVAJANIKA VIDYARTHI NILAYA TRUST REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, SRI K.T.LAKSHMANA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, S/O LATE THIMMA SHETTY #C-1, NEW KANTHARAJ URS ROAD, KUVEMPUNAGAR, MYSORE-570023.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. SUPREETH S.,ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by ANAND N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶12

THE MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶13

¶14

NC: 2024:KHC:43558 WP No. 6902 of 2013

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MYSORE-570 001.

¶16

SRI KULALA GUNDA BRAHMARYA (KUMBARARA) SANGHA REGISTRATION NO.S-69/49-50, #77, K-38, D.BANUMAIAH ROAD, K.R.MOHALLA, MYSORE-570 024, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SRI.T.L.NAGARAJU, NO.210, 2^ND B MAIN ROAD, GOKULAM 2^ND STAGE, MYSORE-570002.

¶17

KULALA GUNDA BRAHMARYA KUMBARARA SANGHA @MYSORE REG. NO. 691/49-50 NO. 54/K 38 D BANUMAIAH ROAD MYSORE REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT SRI. H.S. PRAKASH.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI.T.P. VIVEKANANDA., ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. SAGAR B.B., ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI. I. THARANATH POOJARY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. VEENA T.N., ADVOCATE FOR R5; SMT. CHANDINI S., HCGP FOR R1 AND R2)

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227

¶21

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO -QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.12.12, VIDE ANN-T PASSED BY THE MUDA.

¶22

¶23

NC: 2024:KHC:43558 WP No. 6902 of 2013

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The dispute has a chequered history, and the dispute is as to who is the allottee of the civic amenity site No.C1, New Kantharaj Urs Road, Mysuru [ the Subject property ]. If the petitioner and the fourth respondent contend that this allotment of the civic amenity site by the Mysore Urban Development Authority [ MUDA ] is in favour of the fourth respondent, the fifth respondent contends that such allotment is in its favour.

¶27

The petitioner has filed this petition calling in question the decision of the third respondent [MUDA] on 18.12.2012 [ Annexure-T ]. The MUDA's decision is on two aspects: [a] that the civic amenity site, which is allotted on 24.06.1987, is transferred to the petitioner on 29.09.1987, but this

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:43558 WP No. 6902 of 2013

¶30

transfer is cancelled restoring the allotment to the allottee [b] that the sanction granted to the petitioner for construction of a Hostel is also transferred to the allottee. The MUDA’s case is that the impugned decision dated 18.12.2012 does not decide who between the fourth and fifth respondents is the allottee and that the allottee’s name is restored in the records because the decision to transfer the allotment in favour of the petitioner was taken by the Chairman without placing the subject for approval by the Board. It is obvious from the above that the allotment is not jeopardized, and therefore, this Court must decide whether there must be any interference in these proceedings with this decision because of the dispute as to who between the fourth and fifth respondents is the allottee or decide on this dispute.

¶31

The allottee is a Society registered in the year 1949-50 with Registration No.691/1949-50. The petitioner and the fourth respondent have filed a writ

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:43558 WP No. 6902 of 2013

¶34

petition in W.P. No.44354/2011 arraying the fifth respondent. The petitioner and fourth respondent have filed this petition challenging the direction to MUDA to handover possession of the subject property to the fifth respondent. The petitioner and the fourth respondent have described the fourth respondent as the Society registered in No.691/1949-50 while describing the fifth respondent as the Society registered in No.44/2003-04. The import is to assert that the fourth respondent is the allottee and not the fifth respondent. This writ petition is disposed of directing the MUDA to consider the reply filed by the petitioner, and the impugned decision is a result of such consideration.

¶35

If Sri Supreeth S, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Sagar B B, the learned counsel for the fourth respondent, are categorical that the petitioner does not claim any independent right from the allottee [the fourth respondent] and it is

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:43558 WP No. 6902 of 2013

¶38

functioning under the aegis of the fourth respondent, Sri I Tharanath Poojary, the learned Senior Counsel for the fifth respondent, submits that it is the fourth respondent, that is registered in the year 2003-04, which is making an effort to show that it is the fifth respondent which is registered in the year 2003-04. On merits, Sri I Tharanath Poojary asserts that the records produced as part of the statement of objections [and even other documents] would bear testimony to the fifth respondent’s case that it is the Society that is registered in the year 1949-50 and therefore the allottee. Both Sri Supreeth S and Sri Sagar B B strenuously contest this assertion.

¶39

This Court must observe that the question whether it is the fourth respondent or the fifth respondent who is the allottee must be examined in an appropriately instituted proceedings after hearing both the fourth and the fifth respondents and also with the petitioner being arrayed as party to such

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:43558 WP No. 6902 of 2013

¶42

proceedings. There can be no conclusion on this question unless all the disputed questions of fact and the significance of the earlier proceedings are examined, and these aspects are better examined in a properly instituted suit. The petition, therefore, must be disposed of observing that the MUDA's decision dated 18.12.2012 [Annexure-T] is in favour of that entity which can establish that it is the allottee and the petitioner's right to manage the Trust would be subject to final outcome in a properly instituted suit.

¶43

At this stage, Sri I Tharanath Poojary argues that the petitioner and the fourth respondent taking advantage of the possession of the subject property and the dispute that is set up with registration of an alternative Society, is not only using the subject property for running a Hostel but is commercially exploiting the property contrary to the terms of the allotment. In response, Sri Supreeth S submits that the property is substantially put to use

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:43558 WP No. 6902 of 2013

¶46

as a Hostel and if there is any commercial exploitation, it is limited to the extent of augmenting the income which is necessary for running a mostly charitable Hostel . When queried, Sri Supreeth S submits that the petitioner is running the Hostel also using the proceeds from the property leased as of now for commercial purposes but the petitioner does not intend to put up any further commercial construction and this statement can be taken on record without prejudice to the petitioner to conduct the affairs of the lease including the decision to change the tenants in possession of the respective properties.

¶47

This statement that the petitioner will not put the property to any further commercial use protects mutual interests until the question as to who between the two contesting parties is the allottee of the subject property is appropriately decided. This Court must next observe that even if there is to be

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:43558 WP No. 6902 of 2013

¶50

any alienation or development, it must be with permission in a properly instituted suit and not otherwise. It is needless to observe that the disposal of the above petition in the afore terms does not foreclose any defense that could be available to any of the parties insofar as the question that must be decided in the suit. In the light of the afore, the following:

¶51

ORDER

¶52

[a] The petition stands disposed of declaring that the MUDA's impugned decision dated 18.12.2012 [Annexure-T] shall inure to the allottee registered in the year 1949-50, but the dispute inter se between the fourth and the fifth respondent in this regard must be decided in a properly instituted suit with the petitioner also being arrayed as a party to the proceedings.

¶53

10 -

¶54

NC: 2024:KHC:43558 WP No. 6902 of 2013

¶55

[b] The petitioner, in compliance with the statement made before this Court, shall not develop the subject property for any further commercial exploitation or even transfer the subject property or portion thereof in favour of any third party unless there is a decision in the suit as referred to above. However, this embargo shall not restrict the petitioner's right to either run the Hostel or manage the tenancy issues.

¶56

All pending interim applications in this petition stand disposed of.

¶57

SD/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶58

AN/-

Kumbara Sarvajanika Vidyarthi Nilaya Trust v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumbara Sarvajanika Vidyarthi Nilaya Trust v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Syeda Zohra Jamal Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Sri Beguraiah Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

M/S Control Engineers Vs the Commissioner

S Kumar Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Sri C N Anantharam Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Harish S Vs the Commissioner Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike