Sevalal Lambani Hitavardhak Sangh, Hubli vs State of Karnataka and Others

The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned notice at Annexure-S, dated 5-7-2000 by which the 2nd respondent-Hubli-Dharwad Municipal Corporation has called upon the petitioner to handover possession of 1000 sq. ft. situated in between C.T.S. Nos. 2870, 2871 and 2872 near Eswariya Vishwa Vidyalaya in Hubli town within seven days of the receipt of the notice to it and failing which apart from recovering the costs for getting the place evicted, damages at Rs. 5,000.00 per day would be recovered.

The brief facts leading to the petitioner to the impugned action are.-

The petitioner was allotted the aforesaid place in the year 1993 on lease basis for a period of three years pursuant to a resolution passed by the 2nd respondent on 30-4-1993, which was approved by the Commissioner on 20-5-1993. Thereafter, the first respondent-State of Karnataka passed an order on 19-3-1996, vide Annexure-F according sanction to allot the same place in favour of the 3rd respondent for a period of 15 years on lease basis subject to the condition that the 2nd respondent has to pass a resolution to that effect. The same was subsequently modified as per Annexure-G, dated 26-4-1996 by deleting the condition of 2nd respondent passing resolution in the matter. Since the 2nd respondent has not taken any action pursuant to these two orders of the State Government, the 3rd respondent filed W.P. No. 2825 of 1997 seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to implement forthwith the orders of the Government. The said writ petition was allowed on 27-5-1998 with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the request of the 3rd respondent within six months. In the meanwhile, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 18983 of 1998 challenging the two orders of the State Government. The same was dismissed on 28-7-1998. Against the dismissal of writ petition, the petitioner filed W.A. No. 3538 of 1998 while W.A. No. 2520 of 1998 was filed against the order passed in W.P. No. 2825 of 1997. Both the writ appeals were dismissed by this Court on 18-9-1998. After the dismissal of two writ appeals, the Government passed an order as per Annexure-N, dated 7-1-1999 directing the 2nd respondent to restore possession of the plot in question to the 3rd respondent as per the Government Orders dated 19-3-1996 as modified on 28-4-1996. The petitioner challenged the order dated 7-1-1999 in W.P. No. 1878 of 1999 and obtained interim stay. In the meanwhile, the 3rd respondent initiated contempt proceedings in C.C.C. No. 2402 of 1998 complaining that the 2nd respondent has wilfully disobeyed the order dated 27-5-1998 passed in W.P. No. 2825 of 1997 by which a direction was issued to implement the Government order dated 19-3-1996 within six months. By an order dated 12-6-2000 a Division Bench of this Court dropped the contempt proceedings as there was status quo order in the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The writ petition of the petitioner was dismissed with a direction to the 2nd respondent to comply with the order dated 27-5-1998 in W.P. No. 2825 of 1997 within six weeks, failing which the Corporation shall pay Rs. 5,000/- per month towards damages for not allowing the 3rd respondent to use the property. Pursuant to the said direction, the impugned notice was issued to the petitioner.

From the facts narrated above, it is clear that the impugned notice was issued to the petitioner pursuant to the direction given by a Division Bench of this Court while disposing of the contempt petition and the writ petition. No fault can be found with the same. The petitioner cannot have and should not have any grievance in issuing the impugned notice to it. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.

The various grounds urged in the writ petition and the contentions raised by Mr. Vivek Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner while addressing arguments are not available to the petitioner in view of the admitted position that the order passed by the Government to lease the property in question in favour of the 3rd respondent was the subject-matter of writ petition filed by the petitioner, which writ petition was dismissed by this Court. The writ appeals filed by the petitioner also came to be dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court. Thus, the order to grant lease the property in favour of the 3rd respondent became final. That being the position, the impugned notice was perfectly justified.

It is pertinent to note that the lease in favour of the petitioner was for a period of three years under Annexure-B, dated 20-5-1993 pursuant to the resolution at Annexure-A, dated 30-4-1993. Thereafter, as per Annexure-C, dated 22-1-1997, the lease was extended for a period of three years from 20-5-1996. After the lapse of three years, namely from 20-5-1999 the petitioner has no leasehold right in his favour. The petitioner has not produced any document to show that the lease in its favour has been further extended except the paper cutting at Annexure-P. Petitioner has not produced the copy of the resolution as has been produced vide Annexures-A and B. Since the petitioner has no subsisting right over the property in question in any manner, the petitioner has no locus standi to file this writ petition and the writ petition is not maintainable.

When the petitioner has no locus standi to file this writ petition and since the leasehold rights of the 3rd respondent are confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court, the contentions raised that the property in question being a ''public premises'', the procedure contemplated under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 should have been followed or that no notice was issued to the petitioner before passing the Government orders dated 19-3-1996, which was subsequently modified or that the State Government has no power to decide the manner and mode of disposal of Municipal property, are not available to the petitioner. Virtually, the petitioner has no legs to stand to prosecute this litigation. It is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for in this writ petition.

In the result, this writ petition is dismissed.