AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—Complainants assert to have, at the first instance, obtained allotment of municipal property on lease basis and on its earlier termination, for breach of the terms led to initiation of proceedings under the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974, whence orders were passed directing eviction of the complainants. At that stage, complainants claim to have filed applications before the Deputy Commissioner, who, directed the Municipal counsel to allot the lands on sale basis to the complainants at a price fixed. On the allegation that though the complainants paid the price conveyance deeds were not executed, made representation which were not considered leading to filing W.P. Nos. 84847/2011 and 83943-83944/2011. The learned Single Judge having noticed the aforesaid facts by orders dated 17.04.2012 and 18.04.2012 Annexures-A and B directed consideration of the complainants'' representations and appropriate decisions on the basis of the grant order dated 26.12.1983, within three months. Complainants alleging there non-compliance with the orders of the learned Single Judge have presented these petitions for initiating contempt proceedings.
Needless to state that the properties belonging to the Town Municipal Council, Shahabad, are public properties, to be disposed of in accordance with Section 72 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 read with Rule 39 of the Karnataka Municipalities (Guidance of Officers, Grant of Copies and Miscellaneous Provisions) Rules, 1966, as held by this Division Bench of this Court in Mohan P. Sonu Vs. State of Karnataka, . In other words public properties ought to be disposed of only by issuing a public notification calling upon everybody interested to participate in the auction of the properties.
In almost identical though not similar circumstances, the Apex Court in Saroj Screens Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ghanshyam and Others, observed thus: Though, the exercise of power of disposal of property by the Corporation u/s 70 is not hedged with any particular condition except that the alienation could not have been made without the previous sanction of the State Government, but in our constitutional scheme compliance of the doctrine of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution has to be read as a condition precedent for exercise of power by the State Government and the Corporation, more so, when it relates to alienation of public property on any right or interest therein. The Corporation holds the property as a trustee of the public and any alienation of such property or any right or interest therein otherwise than by way of auction or by inviting bids would amount to breach of that trust.
(emphasis supplied)
If regard is had to the aforesaid observations of Division Bench and Supreme Court coupled with the mandate of the Constitution of India, it is needless to state that complainants'' representations said to have been made to the Deputy Commissioner and the State for consideration, so as to secure conveyance deeds of public properties on the basis of allotments by the Town Municipal Council on the directions of the Deputy Commissioner not compliant with Section 72 of the Act and Rule 39 of the Rules supra, do not have a legal right to such properties and therefore it cannot be said that the non-compliance of the directions of the learned Single Judge in the orders Annexures-A and B have resulted in committing contempt of Court. Petitions devoid of merit are accordingly rejected.