AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ram Mohan Reddy
Petitioner, claiming to be an employee serving the respondent - Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, for short ''BBMP'', for 28 years as a gardener and residing in 1/2 portion of premises No. 46 belonging to the respondent - BBMP, while the other 1/2 portion, also in possession of another employee of the BBMP, having made an application for sale of the said premises in her favour, which when rejected by endorsement dt. 14/7/2010 - Annex.H, has presented this petition. Indisputably petitioner is in possession of the immovable property belonging to her employer, by way of an allotment, and will have to handover possession on attaining superannuation or earlier termination of service since other employees of BBMP are entitled to an allotment of the said property for their residence during their tenure of service. The immovable properties held by the respondent-BBMP are in trust for the public and any disposition by way of sale or otherwise of the said properties cannot but be done, except by way of a public auction so as to secure the highest revenue.
The Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, for short the ''Act'', does not empower the BBMP to sell properties belonging to it in favour of its employees, merely because they have been permitted to occupy such premises during their term of employment.
The submission of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that sale of properties were effected in favour of similarly circumstances employees, is unacceptable. In the first place, there cannot be any estoppel against statute, since the Act does not provide for sale of immovable properties by way of private arrangement in favour of employees of Corporation. AH immovable properties being held in trust by the Corporation, it is needless to state that Art. 14 of the Constitution of India has no application. Equality is said to be a positive concept and cannot be enforced in a negative manner. Benefits extended to some person in an illegal or irregular manner cannot be claimed by others on the plea of equality. This is the law laid down by the Apex Court in State of Bihar and Others Vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh and Another, and State of Uttaranchal Vs. Alok Sharma and Others, as also the decisions in Gursharan Singh and others etc. Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee and others, Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur Vs. Daulat Mal Jain and Others, as well as State of Haryana and Others Vs. Ram Kumar Mann, In that view of the matter, there can be no fault on the part of the respondent-BBMP in rejecting the petitioner''s claim by the endorsement - Annex. H.
Petition is accordingly rejected.