C.S. Chandra Shekar vs Smt. C.S. Amaravathi

Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.—Petitioner is aggrieved by the endorsement/order passed by the Deputy Commissioner - Annexure-A, dated 15.10.2013 in exercise of powers under Section 306 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964.

The petitioner has submitted in the writ petition that the learned Deputy Commissioner could not have postponed the decision on his appeal/representation in respect of Sy. No. 11-173/1A now numbered as 2098/11-173A measuring 40 x 40 ft. to await the decision of the civil suit filed by the plaintiff/petitioner numbered as O.S. No. 28 of 2013 - Smt. K.V. Pushpalatha and another v. Smt. C.S. Amaravathi and others, which is pending in the Court of District Judge, Chickballapur.

Sri G. Balakrishna Shastry, learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that the relief of permanent injunction claimed in the said civil suit against the defendants is in respect of other portion of the land of the same Sy. No. 11/173-1 A, a portion of which was given by way of gift by 2nd respondent-C.S. Shakunthalamma to him. Another adjacent portion was given by way of gift to the 1st respondent-C.S. Amaravathi. He therefore, urged that the impugned endorsement in the present writ petitions deserve to be quashed and the said Depute Commissioner may be directed to pass appropriate quasi judicial speaking order upon the representation/appeal of the petitioners, on merits.

Opposing this submission, Mr. H.R. Narayana Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that this is a case of boundary dispute between these two contesting parties viz., the petitioner and the 1st respondent and since the civil suit O.S. No. 28 of 2013 between the parties is pending, without the determination of the respective rights of the parties by the Competent Civil Court, learned Deputy Commissioner could not be expected to pronounce upon the merits of the rival claims and therefore, the impugned endorsement cannot be validly assailed by the petitioner at this stage.

I have heard the learned Counsel at some length and perused Section 306 of the Municipalities Act and the documents placed on record in Kannada language which, with the help of the learned Counsel, was translated by them in English version and understood by the Court.

Section 306 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 in Chapter XII of the Act No. 22 of 1964, which deals with the control of various authorities, reads as under:

"306. Deputy Commissioner''s power of suspending execution of orders, etc., of municipal councils. -

(1) IE in the opinion of the Deputy Commissioner, the execution of any order or resolution of a Town Municipal Council, or the doing of anything which is about to be done or is being done by or on behalf of a town municipal council, is unlawful or is causing or is likely to cause injury or annoyance to the public, or to lead to a breach of the peace, he may, by order in writing under his signature, suspend the execution or prohibit the doing thereof.

(2) When a Deputy Commissioner makes any order under this Section, he shall forthwith forward to Government and to the Director of Municipal Administration and to the municipal council affected thereby a copy of the order, with a statement of the reasons for making it; and it shall be in the discretion of the Government to rescind the order, or to direct that it shall continue in force with or without modification, permanently or for such period as it thinks fit:

Provided that no order of the Deputy Commissioner passed under this section shall be confirmed, revised or modified by the Government without giving the Municipal Council, a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the said order."

As per the aforesaid provisions, the Deputy Commissioner, in order to maintain law and order and peace of the area concerned, is empowered to suspend the execution of any order or resolution passed by the Town Municipal Council or authorities thereof. Such orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner are subject to further approval by the State Government which can confirm, rescind or modify such orders after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the concerned Municipal Council.

These administrative powers which also include quasi-judicial powers of the Deputy Commissioner in order to maintain peace, law and order situation, in view of the orders passed by the Competent Authorities of the Municipal Council, is not a regular adjudicatory process or power vested in the Deputy Commissioner for deciding the civil rights of the respective parties. The parties in the present case are, admittedly, before the Competent Civil Court for deciding their respective rights. Even though the suit is in the nature of a suit for permanent injunction but without deciding the exact portion of the land belonging to both the parties, the Competent Civil Court also cannot pass any injunction order. Therefore, the determination of the boundary of both the parties by the Competent Court is a sine qua non and is bound to be decided by the Civil Court. The petitioner appears to have taken a deviated route while approaching this Court, even though the respondent Municipality is very much a defendant in the said civil suit and has approached the Deputy Commissioner invoking his powers under Section 306 of the Act which appears to be a misconceived remedy availed by petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Moreover, the translated description of the said document read before he Court by the learned Counsel, dated 15.10.2013 merely stipulates that awaiting the decision of the Civil Court, the Appropriate Authority of the Municipal Council shall pass appropriate orders with regard to the said plot of land once the Civil Court determines their respective right. The rival claims of the parties about the exact determination of the boundary between these two land holdings, therefore, deserves to be first decided by the Civil Court which is seized of the matter and this Court cannot permit multiplication of litigation with respect to the same cause between the parties by allowing the petitioner to take the route of Section 306 of the Municipalities Act which is intended to operate in an entirely different field viz., mainly to maintain peace, law and order situation, in case such a situation arises on account of any action on the part of the Municipal Council concerned and even that power is subject to the approval of the State Government which may modify, rescind or confirm such order after hearing the concerned parties.

Therefore, this Court is satisfied that the present writ petitions are devoid of any merit and the same deserve to be dismissed.

The petitions are dismissed accordingly. No costs.