- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9267 WP No. 1189 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 1189 OF 2015 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. L.R.RAJENDRA PRASAD, SO OF L.N.RADHAKRISHNIAHA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, No.22, S.S.COMPLEX, KOLAR 563 131. 2. M.S.VENKATACHALAPATHY, SON OF M.SURYANARAYANA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, DODDAPETE, KOLAR-563131. SINCE DEAD, BY HIS LR’s 2(a) M.V.AMRUTHA., W/O M.S.VENKATACHALAPATHY, R/AT DODDAPETE, KOLAR-563131. 2(b) M.V.SURYA KIRAN, S/O M.S.VENKATACHALAPATHY, R/AT DODDAPETE KOLAR-563131 2(c) M.V.SHARAN, S/O M.S.VENKATACHALAPATHY, R/AT DODDAPETE, KOLAR-563131 Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9267 WP No. 1189 of 2015 3. K.N.SRIIVASAIAH, SON OF K.T.NARAYANA GOWDA., SINCE DEAD, BY HIS LR., 3(a) SMT. RASHMI.K.S., D/O LATE K.N.SRINIVASAIAH, W/O K.S.RAVINDRA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT BAICHAPPA BUILDING, 3RD CROSS, KUVEMPUR NAGAR KOLAR, KOLAR, KARNATAKA 563 101. 4. H.J.PRABHAKAR RAO, SON OF H.R.SUBBA RAO, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, No.264, 2ND CROSS, GOWRIPET, KOLAR-563131. 5. MAHADEVA, SON OF MAHADEVAPPA., AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, HOTEL GURUDARSHAN, LINK ROAD, T.NARASIPURA. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ROHIT V.R., ADVOCATE FOR SMT. UDITA RAMESH., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOLAR. 2. THE CITY MUNCIPAL COUNCIL KOLAR, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, KOLAR-563 101. …RESPONDENTS (BYSRI.BOPANNA BELLIAPPA., AGA FOR R-1; SMT. VEENA KUMARI.M., ADVOCATE FOR R-2) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9267 WP No. 1189 of 2015 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO GRANT PERMISSIO TO THE R-2 UNDER SECTION 72 OF THE KARNATAKA MUNICIPALITIES ACT., 1964, TO EXECUTE SALE DEEDS IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS WITH RESPECT TO THE SITES THAT THEY HOPE PURCHASE UNDER THE SAID AUCTION, ETC. THISPETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 05.02.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA CAV ORDER 1. An order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner by which he has directed the refund of the money remitted by the petitioners for having been the successful bidder in an auction that was conducted on 21.11.1985 and, a consequential direction to the City Municipal Council to fence the property which the petitioners had purchased under the auction, is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. 2. These facts are not in dispute: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9267 WP No. 1189 of 2015 3. The City Municipal Council passed a resolution on 29.07.1985, whereby it resolved to auction corner sites in Keelukote extension of Kolar. 4. On 21.11.1985 an auction was conducted. In this auction, the father of the 1st petitioner late L.N.Radhakrishniah Shetty participated and made the highest bid in respect of site bearing Nos.14 and 18 for a sum of Rs.42,700/- and Rs.57,300/-. 5. The 2nd petitioner was the highest bidder in respect of the site bearing No.48 for a sum of Rs.37,000/-. Similarly, the 3rd petitioner’s wife late Jayalakshmi was the highest bidder in respect of site bearing No.66 for a sum of Rs.44,800/- and the 4th and 5th petitioners were the highest bidders in respect of site bearing Nos.56 and 31 for a sum of Rs.41,800/- and Rs.51,000/- respectively. 6. It is not in dispute that, pursuant to the said auction, the petitioners (i.e., the highest bidders) remitted - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9267 WP No. 1189 of 2015 the amounts that they had bid for purchase of these aforementioned sites. 7. In the year 2008, a similarly situated auction purchaser called V.V.Rajashekar filed W.P.No.14882/2008 requesting this Court to issue a mandamus to the City Municipal Council to convey the site that he had purchased and this Court by an order dated 29.06.2009 allowed the writ petition and directed the Kolar Municipal Council to consider his representation and pass an order within a period of two months. 8. It may also be pertinent to state here that, the landowners in which the sites were situated had, in fact, challenged the acquisition by filing W.P.No.7567/2008, but this Court by its order dated 19.08.2009 dismissed the writ petition. 9. The petitioners thereafter requested the authorities to conduct a survey, if necessary, demarcate the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9267 WP No. 1189 of 2015 boundaries and execute documents in favour of the petitioners. 10. However, since the same was not forthcoming, they were constrained to approach this Court once again in W.P.No.18087-18091/2012 and this Court by an order dated 23.07.2012 disposed of the said writ petitions directing the petitioners to make a representation and, if such a representation was given, the Commissioner would have to consider the same and pass orders in accordance with law within a period of three months. 11. Pursuant to the said order, the City Municipal Council proceeded to address a communication to the Deputy Commissioner seeking for his approval to convey the property to the petitioners. 12. To this, the Deputy Commissioner sought for certain clarifications from the Municipal Council, which was also furnished. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:9267 WP No. 1189 of 2015 13. The Deputy Commissioner, not being satisfied with the request of the Municipal Council, has proceeded to pass an order on 28.05.2014 refusing to do so, which is impugned in this writ petition. 14. The Deputy Commissioner by the impugned order, basically, states that the auction was conducted by the Municipal Council without obtaining the prior approval of the Government as required under the 72 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (hereinafter for short referred to as the “Act”) and, therefore, it was not very clear as to whether the auction was conducted after a proper notification being issued in that regard. 15. The Deputy Commissioner has gone on to state that the auction, which was conducted without the prior approval of the Government, had rendered the auction itself invalid and, therefore, the question of confirming would not arise and he has also proceeded to direct the City Municipal Council to - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:9267 WP No. 1189 of 2015 refund the amounts paid by the petitioners and ultimately stated that the property should be fenced and taken care of by the City Municipal Council. 16. The narration of the above facts would thus indicate that, in respect of an auction which was conducted in the year 1985, the Deputy Commissioner in the year 2014 i.e., after 29 years of the auction, has concluded that the auction cannot be confirmed because it was not preceded by a prior approval of the Government as required under Section 72 of the Act. 17. It may be pertinent to state here that the City Municipal Council admittedly retained the bid amounts ranging from Rs.37,000/- to Rs.57,300/- for 29 years and this Court had intervened on more than one occasion not only in the case of the petitioners, but also in the case of others and had directed consideration of their claims. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:9267 WP No. 1189 of 2015 18. Section 72 of the Act, no doubt, states that before the Municipal Council wishes to sell any property, it will have to obtain the prior approval of the Government. 19. However, in a case such as this, if the City Municipal Council had retained the money ranging from Rs.37,000/- to Rs.57,300/-, which admittedly had a huge monetory value in the year 1985, for 29 years and, thereafter, if the Deputy Commissioner were to state that there was no prior approval, there cannot be a greater travesty of justice. 20. It may be pertinent to state here that, if the petitioners been informed way back in the year 1985, that their auction was bad or could not be accepted, they could have put their money to better use and purchased similar properties, which would have increased in value manifold by now. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:9267 WP No. 1189 of 2015 21. It is also to be noticed that the money secured for the sale of a site in a public auction, would essentially be a sale of a property with a premium given the fact the sale is made after a bout of competitive bidding. 22. It is therefore obvious that the petitioners, if informed about the invalidity of the auction in 1985, could have invested their hard-earned money to purchase a property in the year 1985, which as already stated above would have greatly appreciated since then. 23. In short, if the petitioners had invested their monies in the year 1985, on similarly situated properties, the same properties would have fetched them huge sums of money as of today. 24. Having regard to this peculiar aspect involved in the case, in my view, since the City Municipal Council retained the monies of the petitioners for 29 years - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:9267 WP No. 1189 of 2015 and obviously utilized them, the decision of the Deputy Commissioner to merely direct refund of the said amounts would be improper, irrational and arbitrary. 25. I am therefore of the view that keeping in mind the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it would be appropriate to direct the Government to consider according, post facto approval for the sale that was conducted in the year 1985. 26. The Government shall take into consideration the facts narrated above, especially the fact that the properties were auctioned in the year 1985, the entire amounts were paid by the petitioners and were also retained by the City Municipal Council for the past 29 years. 27. The Government shall undertake and complete this exercise of considering the claim of the petitioners for post facto approval of the auction, within a period - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:9267 WP No. 1189 of 2015 of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 28. If the Government considers that this as genuine case, which requires it to grant a post facto approval, the requirement of approval under Section 72 of the Act shall also stand complied with, and, thereupon, the City Municipal Council will have to execute the sale deed within a further period of three months from the date of approval. 29. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 30. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE GSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 77