Basaveshwar Veerashiva Vidyavardhaka Sangha vs The State of Karnataka and Others

L. Narayana Swamy, J.—Sri Sunil S. Desai, learned Counsel to take notice for respondent No. 4.

The petitioner has filed these writ petitions seeking to quash the impugned notices dated 22/30.09.2015 issued by respondent No. 4, vide Annexures - Q, Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4.

The petitioner Sangha with an intention to establish Engineering/Medical College, had made a request to the respondent No. 1 for grant of land. The State Government had granted land in an extent of 253 acres 5 guntas for a period of 30 years. After expiry of the lease period, on 05.04.1999 Government had passed an order granting the lands to the petitioner on permanent ownership. Petitioner had constructed buildings in the said lands and the buildings are more than 20 years old. As things stood thus, respondent No. 4 issued notices to petitioner to produce building permission obtained at the time of construction of buildings. Petitioner had replied to the said notices by stating that at the time of construction of the buildings the said lands were not within the limits of the City Municipal Council. Thereafter, respondent No. 4 issued impugned notices dated 22/30.09.2015 stating that the reply furnished by the petitioner is not acceptable, and hence, the buildings in question were directed to be demolished within a period of 15 days.

The learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner had used the land by commencing the educational institutions within the stipulated period of time, namely, Engineering / Medical college. It is submitted that petitioner has put up construction as per clause 2 and 3 of the order of grant and buildings have been put up in the year 2000 and colleges are running. Under these circumstances, notice was issued under Section 187 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'', for brevity). The said provision applies only to the new building, whereas, the present buildings have been put up as per the order of grant. Hence, the provision is not applicable. The respondent Municipal Council had issued a notice dated 22/30.09.2015 directing petitioner to demolish the building within a period of 15 days. Similar notices were also issued to the petitioner as per Annexures- Q, Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4. Hence, the present petitions.

It is submitted that the petitioner was allotted land for the purpose of running educational institutions. Petitioner was subjected to a condition that it should put up construction of building, for the purpose for which the land was granted, within a period of two years. The learned counsel for petitioner further submits that respondent has not passed a speaking order. Secondly, Section 187 of the Act is not applicable in the instant case, since it is applicable only to the newly constructed buildings. Thirdly, petitioner had not been heard in the matter and when the land was granted to the petitioner it was not within the municipal area.

The learned counsel for respondent No. 4 submits that petitioner has constructed one Marriage Hall and one commercial complex, for which the land was not granted. As the petitioner has admitted that it had put up construction in the year 2000, it had to produce the licence to put up construction in compliance of Section 187 of the Act. As per Section 187(9) of the Act the Municipal Commissioner or Chief Officer is vested with the power to inspect and pass an order of demolition or for any necessary action. Hence, he prays to dismiss the petitions.

The learned Government Advocate for R1 and R2 submits that the illegality committed in putting up construction by the petitioner is sought to be regularised by filings these petitions, which is impermissible. Hence, he also prays to dismiss the petitions.

Heard. Petitioner had admitted that it had put up construction in the year 2000 as per the allotment letter, vide Annexure-A, subject to the conditions. As per condition No. 2 petitioner has to pay Rs. 54,25,945/- within a period of thirty days. Secondly, the petitioner has to use the land for the purpose for which it was granted.. The payment of said amount, has been withdrawn by issuing an endorsement dated 14.11.2000 by the Deputy Commissioner and it is not forthcoming from the endorsement as to what was his power to delete the said condition No. 2 imposed in Government order dated 14.05.1999 for payment of Rs. 54,25,945/- to the Government. The petitioner submitted that the deletion of payment of said amount was as per the Government order dated 05.04.1999. The petitioner and the respondent have not substantiated about the power of the Government in relaxing the payment of conversion cost of Rs. 54,00,000/-. Unless the power is traced to the Government, action of the petitioner is also illegal and arbitrary.

The ground urged by the petitioner that Section 187 of the Act applies only to the new building, is unacceptable and is accordingly rejected. The petitioner''s case would have been applicable only if it had placed any reliance or the piece of document to show that it had put up construction in the year 2000 with due licence granted by the competent authority. The construction itself has been put up illegally and contrary to the Town and Country Planning Act and other provisions.

It is admitted that petitioner had not obtained licence since the order of grant itself enables it to put up constructions. The constructions are contrary to the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, as per the order of respondent No. 5, petitioner is required to demolish the building as is stipulated by the Municipality.

As it is submitted by respondent No. 4, the portion of the property has been used for construction of Marriage Hall and also for commercial complex. But, as can be seen from Annexure-A, the land was allotted to the petitioner only for educational purpose and not for any other purpose.

Under these circumstances, the rejection of representation dated 31.08.2015 is sound and proper. The action of the petitioner is illegal and contrary to Section 187 of the Act and also to the conditions of grant made and other relevant provisions of law. As the petitioner had approached this Court with unclean hands, he is not supposed to seek equatorial order under the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the petitions are dismissed with costs. The petitioner is directed to demolish the building within a period of 30 days from today and the Commissioner to file an affidavit as to the action taken.