City Municipal Council and Others vs Sri S. Rajesh Kumar and Others

Mr. Justice K. Sreedhar Rao

The petitioner in the above cases is the City Municipality, Shimoga. The private respondents in these writ petitions have filed suit seeking declaration of title in respect of the area supposed to be in their Occupation in Sy.No.26 of Millakatta Extension, Shimoga City. The private respondents contend that they have purchased the sites formed in the said survey number. Per contra, it is the contention of the Municipality that the said survey number belongs to Municipality and Municipality proposes to construct bus stand for public utility. The private respondents apprehending their dispossession nave filed the suit for declaration. The plaintiffs also seek relief of refund of sale consideration from the third respondent who is their vendor. The land is a vacant land as of now.

The plaintiffs have sought for temporary injunction against the petitioner during pendency of the suit. The trial court rejected the application. In Misc. Appeal, the District Judge, Shimoga has granted injunction and also passed an order appointing the Commissioner for local inspection and locating the property. The petitioner aggrieved by the order in this Misc. Appeal, has filed these writ petitions.

It is the contention of the petitioner that central funds are granted to the Municipality for construction of the bus stand. The project is time bound project. If the funds are not utilised, it will lapse and the public will lose the facility of having bus stand. It is also argued that the District Judge committed an error in granting injunction and also in appointing the Commissioner even before recording of evidence. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. The question of grant or non-grant of injunction in the present context, appears to be only of academic importance. It would be in the interests of both the parties, to direct the trial court to dispose of the cases at the earliest so that they will have correct, understanding over the legal right in respect of the property and it also helps the Municipality that if it succeeds, they can construct bus stand or otherwise it will have to think of locating bus stand elsewhere. In that view of the matter, the parties are directed to maintain statusquo. The trial court is directed to dispose of the suit within 6 months from the dare of receipt of copy of this order. The petitioners are permitted to file objections to the Commissioner''s report. If need be, the parties are at liberty to seek appointment of Commissioner for the purpose of measurement of properties of the plaintiffs. Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of.