Skip to content


H. Veerabhadrappa Vs. the Deputy Commissioner, Bellary District Bellary and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petition No. 560 of 1971
Judge
Reported inAIR1972Kant113; AIR1972Mys113; (1971)2MysLJ495
ActsMysore Land Revenue Rules, 1966 - Rule 93A and 93A(3); Mysore Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1967
AppellantH. Veerabhadrappa
RespondentThe Deputy Commissioner, Bellary District Bellary and ors.
Appellant AdvocateT.S. Ramachandra, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateRajashekhar Murthy, High Court Govt. Pleader and ;K. Suryanarayana Rao, Adv.
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
.....to the revenue authorities in the light of the resolution passed by the gram panchayath. writ petition is mis-conceived. - 3. in the instant case, it is not disputed that the disposal in favour of respondents 2 and 3 is clearly one falling within the category of disposal of sites by 'private arrangement' as envisaged in the said rule. this rule, in our opinion, is clearly based on sound public policy, namely, that all those in need of sites should have a fair and equal opportunity to apply for the grant of such sites. clearly deserves to be set aside......decision of the members of the committee for finalisation of vacant sites. curiously enough, the deputy commissioner, bellary, hardly two months later, has made the impugned order granting 5 cents each to respondents 2 and 3 at a cost of rs. 1-50 per sq. yd. in addition to a stipulation for payment of ground rent and sub-division fees. aggrieved by this order the petitioner has presented this writ petition.2. the principal contention of sri t. s. ramachandra. the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, is that the deputy commissioner had not complied with the requirements of rule 93a of the mysore land revenue rules, 1966, as amended by the mysore land revenue (amendment) rules, 1967. specifically, he drew attention to the procedure laid down in sub-rule (3) of the said.....
Judgment:

Venkataswami, J.

1. The petitioner herein has challenged the Order of allotment of two portions of T. S No 64 situate, in ward No. XXI, Block No. 3 of Eellary Town in favour of the 2nd & 3rd respondents herein, made by the Deputy Commr., Beilary in A. Dis. Rev 16240/ 68-69 R-3. dated 4-7-70. That the aforesaid T. S. No. 64 is a building site is not in dispute. The case of the petitioner is that he himself had applied for the grant of that site on 26-6-1967 on the ground that he was an adjoining owner and his present accommodation was insufficient for his residence. In response to that application, the Assistant Commissioner, Bellary, who it is not disputed, was also a competent authority, sent a reply on 22-5-1970. in E Dis Rev. No. 247/70-71-B, stating that the said T. S. No. 64 was not available for grant as the same was required for the extension of post Office as per the decision of the Members of the Committee for finalisation of vacant sites. Curiously enough, the Deputy Commissioner, Bellary, hardly two months later, has made the impugned order granting 5 cents each to respondents 2 and 3 at a cost of Rs. 1-50 per sq. yd. in addition to a stipulation for payment of ground rent and sub-division fees. Aggrieved by this Order the petitioner has presented this writ petition.

2. The principal contention of Sri T. S. Ramachandra. the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, is that the Deputy Commissioner had not complied with the requirements of Rule 93A of the Mysore Land Revenue Rules, 1966, as amended by the Mysore Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1967. Specifically, he drew attention to the procedure laid down in sub-rule (3) of the said Rule, whereby a procedure has been prescribed for the disposal of building site by 'private arrangement,' we are of the opinion that this contention must be accepted as correct.

3. In the instant case, it is not disputed that the disposal in favour of respondents 2 and 3 is clearly one falling within the category of disposal of sites by 'private arrangement' as envisaged in the said Rule. Under sub-rule (1) of the said Rule, two modes are prescribed for the disposal of sites by the Deputy Commissioner. They are:

(1) by public auction and (2) by 'private arrangements' on payment of a price to be fixed by the Deputy Commissioner. Sub-rule (3). with which we are immediately concerned reads thus:

'In cases where the Deputy Commissioner decides to dispose of the building sites by private arrangements he shall

(a) advertise the proposal for disposal of such buildings sites and,

(b) call for applications giving a time limit of three months.'

4. It is clear from this provision, that in cases where the Deputy Commissioner decides to dispose of the building sites by 'private arrangement1, he should comply with the requirements of that provision. This Rule, in our opinion, is clearly based on sound public policy, namely, that all those in need of sites should have a fair and equal opportunity to apply for the grant of such sites. It is undisputed that this procedure has not been followed in making the impugned order of grant. The order of grant made in favour of respondents 2 and 3, a copy of which is produced herein as Ex. B. clearly deserves to be set aside.

5. In the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner Bellary, made in A. Dis Rev. 16240/68-69-R-3. dated 4-7-1970. is hereby quashed. We. however, make it clear that it is open to the authority concerned to take fresh proceedings in accordance with Rules and in the light of the observations made.

6. In the circumstances, we make no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //