AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:
i) Issue Writ of Mandamus and any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of respondent No.1 in locking the premises, throwing out the petitioners from the shops without giving them prior notice and an opportunity of being heard is illegal;
ii) Issue Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 & 3 to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 02.05.2011 vide Annexure-X;
iii) Issue Writ of direction or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent No.1 to execute the lease deed in favour of the petitioners in respect of their shops;
Petitioners are in possession of certain shops in survey Nos.1 and 2 of Bettadapur village belonging to 3rd respondent temple. They are doing petty business in the shops. According to the petitioners, they have constructed the shops with their own money. However, according to respondent No.2 - Bettadapura Grama Panchayat, the Panchayat has contributed the money for construction of the shops. Be that as it may, the admitted fact remains that the petitioners are the tenants of the shops belonging to the 3rd respondent.
When the facts stood thus, an order came to be passed by the Tahasildar, Periyapatna Taluk, "Periyapatne, vide Annexure-''D'' dated 19.1.2010 based on the direction of the Assistant Commissioner, Hunsur, for handing over all the shops in question to the 2nd respondent Panchayat for the purpose of maintenance and supervision. The said order Annexure-D reveals that there are 40 shops, out of which, 31 shops are having RCC roofs and 9 shops are having asbestos sheets roofs. Certain conditions are imposed by the Tahsildar on the Grama Panchayat at the time of handing over the shops for maintenance. Accordingly, the Panchayat continued to collect the lease amounts and issued receipts to the petitioners as per Annexures-''E'' to ''S''. When the facts stood thus, all of a sudden, the 1st respondent allegedly came to the spot, locked all the shops and got vacated the petitioners from the shops forcibly. However, according to the petitioners, their belongings are still existing within the shops which are locked from outside. The State Government authorities tried to auction the shops in public. At that point of time, these writ petitions are filed praying for the aforementioned reliefs.
This Court while issuing notice, suspended the auction which was scheduled to be held on 31.5.2011 and consequently, the auction did not take place.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 Panchayat supports the case of the petitioners. As a matter of fact, Writ Petition No. 18782/2011 is filed by the Panchayat seeking quashing of public auction of the shops. Thus, it is clear that the Panchyat fully supports the case of the petitioners.
The State Government has not filed statement of objections.
The question involved in these writ petitions are squarely covered by the judgment of this Court dated 31st May 2011 passed in Writ Petition Nos.17677-17722/2011 and connected matters, wherein this Court observed thus :
Para-4: There is nothing on record to show that the petitioners have vacated the premises So also, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioners were evicted in accordance with law. If the petitioners are continued in the premises in question even after expiry of the lease period, it is deemed that they are in unauthorised possession of the shops. Wherefore, action will have to be taken by the 3rd respondent to evict the petitioners in accordance with law. Till such time, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners for evicting them forcibly.
Para - 5: Since the petitioners have made representations to continue the lease in their favour as per the Circulars vide Annexures-''A'' and ''B'' dated 26.10.2009 and 30.12.2010 respectively, it is for the 3rd respondent to consider the representations in accordance with law. The Circulars issued by the State Government as per Annexures- ''A'' and ''B'' reveal that the lease period will be extended in respect of the old buildings in a particular manner as stated in the said circular. As the representations are to be considered by the 3rd respondent, this Court does not wish to comment anything further on this aspect of the matter.
Para-6 : At this stage, Sri K.R Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the belongings of the petitioners are inside their respective shops and that the 3rd respondent has forcibly locked the shops. The said fact is emphatically denied by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 3rd respondent. Be that as it may, if the shops are still having the belongings of the respective shop keepers (petitioners), it should be deemed that the petitioners were forcibly thrown out of the premises. If it is so, such an action of the 3rd respondent is bad in the eye of law. In the civilised society, the person occupying the public premises unauthorisedly will have to be evicted in accordance with law. In view of the same, if the things/articles of the petitioners are still in their shops and the shops are locked by the Municipality, it is deemed that the petitioners are in possession of the shops.
Thus, having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case the following order is made :
The petitioners shall not be evicted from the shops in question, except in accordance with law, unless the petitioners have vacated the shops voluntarily by this time. The respondent No. 3 is directed to consider the representations vide Annexure-''C'' series in accordance with law and in accordance with the Karnataka Municipalities Act and the Circulars issued by the State Government from time to time.
With these observations, the writ petitions are disposed of.
Since the facts on hand are similar to the facts in Writ Petition Nos. 17677-17722/2011 & connected matters, these writ petitions are also entitled to be disposed of in terms of the aforementioned order. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioners were issued with notices and were evicted with due process of law. Respondent Nos.1 and 4 could not have taken law into their hands. They should not have evicted the petitioners who are running the business in accordance with law by paying rents to the Panchayat There is nothing on record to show that the lease is terminated as per law. Therefore they are deemed to be in possession of the property, inasmuch as, their belongings are said to be existing within the shops. If at all the respondents 1, 3 and 4 wanted to evict the petitioners, they should have done so in accordance with law.
In view of the above, these writ petitions are disposed of as under :
Petitioners shall not be evicted from the shops in question except in accordance with law, unless the petitioners have vacated the shops voluntarily by this time.
It is open for the petitioners to make suitable representations before the respondents for appropriate reliefs within eight weeks from this day. Such representations, if any filed by the petitioners, shall be considered by the respondents in accordance with law, particularly in accordance with the provisions of Karnataka Municipalities Act and the Circulars issued by the State Government from time to time. In the meanwhile, locks put by respondent No.1 shall be opened by the 1st and 2nd respondents.
Petitioners shall pay the rents regularly to respondent No.2 immediately after re-occupying the shops.
In view of the above, Misc.W.No.7829/2011 filed for direction is also stands disposed of.
ORDER IN W.P.Nos. 18792/2011 & 19254-255/2011
These writ petitions stands disposed of in terms of the aforementioned order in W.P.Nos. 17737-760/2011.