WP28993 15 29 06 2021

1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
WRIT PETITION NO.28993 OF 2015 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SHANTHAMMA
W/O CHANDRASEKHAR
AGED 47 YEARS
R/A NO.15, B-BLOCK
NACHANAHALLI PALYA, J.P.NAGAR
MYSORE - 570004 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M.H. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MYSORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE

REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
MYSORE – 570 004.
2. THE MYOSRE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
MYSORE – 570 004. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.GEETHADEVI.M.P, ADVOCATE FOR R1,

SRI. T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
Sri.M.H.Prakash, learned counsel for petitioner, Smt.
Geethadevi M. Papanna, learned counsel for respondent-1 and
Sri. T.P. Vivekananda, learned counsel for respondent-2 have
appeared through video conferencing.
2. It is stated that petitioner belongs to social and
economic weaker section. The erstwhile Nachanahalli Gram
Panchayat had granted a residential site bearing No.15 in survey
number 97/B measuring 30x40 feet in favor of petitioner during
the year 1996. It is stated that apart from petitioner there are
about 19 others who are similarly placed with that of petitioner
who are also beneficiaries under the scheme.
It is stated that petitioner constructed a small house and is
residing in the said house. Subsequently, the area in which the
sites are formed inducted into the jurisdiction of the Mysore
Urban Development Authority through notification. Petitioner is
paying requisite tax to the first respondent since then.

3
It is averred that the site in issue is within the jurisdiction
of the Mysore Mahanagara Palike but the Khata was not
registered into the name of petitioner. In an around 2013, a
representation was given to the first respondent seeking change
of the khata in the revenue entries of the first respondent.
As things stood thus, the first respondent on 23.06.2015
through an Official Memorandum passed an order thereby,
cancelled the Khata standing in the name of petitioner stating
that the land in which the site is granted belongs to the Mysore
Urban Development Authority (MUDA) and doubted the
credibility of the grant made by the Nachanahalli Grama
Panchayat. It is stated that no notice was given to the petitioner
before passing the order. Petitioner was not heard by the first
respondent.
Under these circumstances, left with no other alternate or
efficacious remedy, petitioner has invoked the writ of jurisdiction
of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. Learned Counsel for petitioner and respondents have
urged several grounds. Heard the contentions urged on behalf

4
of petitioner and respondents and perused the Annexures with
care.
4. The principal ground on which the Court is asked to
quash the Official communication is that there had been a breach
of rules of natural justice, in particular, it is said that the
petitioner had been denied a fair hearing by reason of the fact
that the petitioner had not been served with notice as required
under Section 114-A of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (for
short 'the Act').
While arguing the matter, learned counsel for petitioner
Sri. M.H. Prakash strenuously urged that the first respondent has
not exercised the power as per Section 114-A of the Act in true
spirit.
It would be relevant to refer to Section 114-A of the Act,
which reads as under:-
"Section 114A. Review by the Commissioner.- Where

the Commissioner, either suo motu or otherwise, after
such enquiry as he considers necessary is satisfied that
any transfer of title under section 114 was got recorded
in the Corporation register by fraud, misrepresentation,
5
or suppression of facts or by furnishing false, incorrect

or incomplete material, he may within a period of three
years from the date of such recording of transfer of title
reopen the case and pass such order with respect
thereto as he thinks fit:
Provided that no such order shall be made except

after giving the person likely to be affected thereby a
reasonable opportunity of being heard".
A bare perusal of the proviso makes it very clear that no
order shall be made without giving an opportunity to person who
may adversely be affected. But in the instant case, no
opportunity was given to the petitioner to have his say in the
matter. The Official memorandum is issued in violation of the
Section 114-A of the Act.
Further, it is pivotal to note that as and when the power is
purported to be exercised under Section 114-A, the
Commissioner is required to pass a speaking order. But in the
present case, an Official Memorandum is issued which is totally
opposed to the provisions of the statute.
That apart, the petitioner was not all heard.

6
It is pivotal to note that, the principle of Audi alteram
partem is the basic concept of the principle of natural justice .
The omnipotence inherent in the doctrine is that no one should
be condemned unheard.
It is needless to say that whenever a public function is
being performed there is an inference, in the absence of an
express requirement to the contrary, that the function is
required to be performed fairly. The inference will be more
compelling in the case of any decision which may adversely
affect a person’s rights or interests or when a person has a
legitimate expectation of being fairly treated. The significance of
this approach is that it prima facie imposes on all administrators
an obligation to act fairly. Without acknowledging this expressly,
the majority of the decisions/orders of the public authorities are
in practice no more than conscious or unconscious illustrations of
the approach.
5. In the result, the writ petition deserves to be
allowed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Order of
certiorari to quash the official communication is granted.

7
Consequently, the communication dated 23.06.2015 in
¸ÀA:ªÀ.D./ªÀ.PÀ-02/RPR(KT)/969/2012-13 issued by the first
respondent at Annexure-'E' is quashed.
The matter is remitted to the first respondent. Since
parties are represented by their respective counsels, the
petitioner and second respondent are directed to appear before
first respondent on 26.07.2021.
It is made clear that first respondent should hear both
petitioner and second respondent and then pass suitable orders
thereon, within a period of six months.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KGR*

WP28993 15 29 06 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WP28993 15 29 06 2021

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

WP28993 15 29 06 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI

WRIT PETITION NO.28993 OF 2015 (LB-RES)

(BY SRI. M.H. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

1. MYSORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE

2. THE MYOSRE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

(BY SMT.GEETHADEVI.M.P, ADVOCATE FOR R1,

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

Sri.M.H.Prakash, learned counsel for petitioner, Smt.

Geethadevi M. Papanna, learned counsel for respondent-1 and

Sri. T.P. Vivekananda, learned counsel for respondent-2 have

appeared through video conferencing.

2. It is stated that petitioner belongs to social and

economic weaker section. The erstwhile Nachanahalli Gram

Panchayat had granted a residential site bearing No.15 in survey

number 97/B measuring 30x40 feet in favor of petitioner during

about 19 others who are similarly placed with that of petitioner

who are also beneficiaries under the scheme.

It is stated that petitioner constructed a small house and is

residing in the said house. Subsequently, the area in which the

sites are formed inducted into the jurisdiction of the Mysore

Urban Development Authority through notification. Petitioner is

paying requisite tax to the first respondent since then.

It is averred that the site in issue is within the jurisdiction

of the Mysore Mahanagara Palike but the Khata was not

registered into the name of petitioner. In an around 2013, a

representation was given to the first respondent seeking change

of the khata in the revenue entries of the first respondent.

As things stood thus, the first respondent on 23.06.2015

through an Official Memorandum passed an order thereby,

cancelled the Khata standing in the name of petitioner stating

Urban Development Authority (MUDA) and doubted the

credibility of the grant made by the Nachanahalli Grama

Panchayat. It is stated that no notice was given to the petitioner

Under these circumstances, left with no other alternate or

efficacious remedy, petitioner has invoked the writ of jurisdiction

of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. Learned Counsel for petitioner and respondents have

urged several grounds. Heard the contentions urged on behalf

of petitioner and respondents and perused the Annexures with

4. The principal ground on which the Court is asked to

quash the Official communication is that there had been a breach

of rules of natural justice, in particular, it is said that the

petitioner had been denied a fair hearing by reason of the fact

under Section 114-A of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (for

short 'the Act').

While arguing the matter, learned counsel for petitioner

It would be relevant to refer to Section 114-A of the Act,

which reads as under:-

"Section 114A. Review by the Commissioner.- Where

or suppression of facts or by furnishing false, incorrect

Provided that no such order shall be made except

A bare perusal of the proviso makes it very clear that no

order shall be made without giving an opportunity to person who

may adversely be affected. But in the instant case, no

opportunity was given to the petitioner to have his say in the