- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9876 WP No. 18250 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 18250 OF 2022 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. ABDUL RAWOF, AGED ABOUT 89 YEARS, S/O LATE ABDUL RASHEED, FREEDOM FIGHTER, No.33, 6TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS, HOSAGURAPPANAYALYA, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 029. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.ASWATHANARAYANA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL MALUR-563130, KOLAR DISTRICT BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR 563 102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BOPANNA BELLIAPPA., AGA FOR R-1 & R-3; SRI. RAMESH KUMAR.R.V., ADVOCATE FOR R-2) Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9876 WP No. 18250 of 2022 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE RESOLUTION OF THE TMC DATED 14.06.2016 ANNEXURE-A IS ENFORCEABLE ON ITS FORCE WITH REQUIRING THE APPROVAL OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION (SEVENTY FOURTH AMENDMENT) ACT AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT BY A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO PUT THE PETITIONER IN POSSESSION OF THE HOUSE SITE WITH NECESSARY DOCUMENTS IN ACCORDANCE OF THE TMC RESOLUTION DATED 14.06.2016 ANNEXURE-A FORTHWITH. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 27.02.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA CAV ORDER 1. The petitioner, a freedom fighter and presently a nonagenarian, has been made to chase a dream that the Municipal Council promised to him way back in the year 2008 by pursuing litigation after litigation in the corridors of Court. 2. It is rather sad and tragic that the Municipal Council and the State has left the petitioner, who is in the twilight of his life, completely disillusioned by its - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9876 WP No. 18250 of 2022 inability to fulfill the promise it held out to him after giving him an impression that they were repaying his debt to Society. This is obviously not the way the petitioner dreamed that the country which he fought for would have treated him. 3. The facts involved in filing of this writ petition are as follows: 4. A resolution was passed on 18.09.2008 by the Town Municipal Council (hereinafter referred to as the TMC) whereby it had resolved to allot a vacant site measuring 15’ X 40’ ft. in favour of the petitioner, taking into consideration that he had fought for the freedom of this Country. However, this resolution remained only on paper and was not implemented by the TMC. 5. Eight years thereafter, on 14.06.2016, a second resolution was been passed in subject No.7 by the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9876 WP No. 18250 of 2022 TMC resolving once again to allot a site to the petitioner, which reads as follows: «µÀAiÀÄ 7:- ²æà C§Äݯï gÀ¥ÀÇ¥sï ©£ï C§Äݯï gÀ¶ÃzïgÀªÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:-31- 03-2016 gÀAzÀÄ | Cfð ¤Ãr ¸ÁévÀAvÀæå ºÉÆÃgÁlUÁgÀ£ÁzÀ vÀªÀÄUÉ ¥ÀÅgÀ¸À¨sɬÄAzÀ ¢:-18-9-2008 gÀAzÀÄ ¤ªÉñÀ£À ªÀÄAdÆgÁw ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä Cfð ¸À°è¹zÀÄÝ, ¥ÀÅgÀ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ°è ¤ªÉñÀ£À ¤ÃqÀĪÀ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ oÀgÁªÀÅ DVzÀÄÝ, DzÀgÉ, ¤ªÉñÀ£À ¸ÀA§AzsÀ ¸ÀܼÀ vÉÆÃj¹zÀÄÝ, DzÀgÉ, F vÀºÀ¯ïªÀgÉUÉ ¤ªÉñÀ£À ªÀÄAdÆgÀÄ DUÀzÉà EgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ Cfð ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ «ZÁgÀ wêÀiÁð£À:- «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß PÀÆ®APÀĵÀªÁV ¥Àj²Ã°¹ F »AzÉ ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀjUÉ ¤ªÉñÀ£À ¤ÃqÀĪÀ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ oÀgÁªÀÅ DVzÀÝgÀÆ ªÀiÁ£Àå f¯Áè¢üPÁjAiÀĪÀjUÉ ªÀÄAdÆgÁwUÀºÁV ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£É ¸À°è¸ÀzÉà EgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ E£ÉÆߪÉÄä ªÀiÁ£Àå f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ½UÉ F §UÉÎ ªÀÄgÀÄ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£É ¸À°è¸À®Ä ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ°è wêÀiÁð¤¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. 6. The Municipal Council, in fact addressed a communication to the Planning Director in the following terms: “ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢¹zÀAvÉ, ²æà C§Äݯï gÀªÀÇ¥sï ©£ï C§Äݯï gÀ¶Ãzï, £ÀA. 33, 6£Éà CqÀØ gÀ¸ÉÛ, ºÉƸÀUÀÄgÀ¥Àà£À ¥Á¼Àå, §£ÉßÃgÀÄWÀlÖ gÀ¸ÉÛ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ-59 ¸ÁévÀAvÀæå ºÉÆÃgÁlUÁgÀgÀÄ EªÀgÀUÉ ¤ªÉñÀ£À ¤ÃqÀĪÀ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ G¯ÉèÃR(1) gÀ jÃvÁå wêÀiÁð¤¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. CzÀgÀAvÉ, ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV, G¯ÉèÃR(2) gÀ ¸ÀPÁðj ¸ÀÄvÉÆÛïÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀAqÀħA¢gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. DzÀÝjAzÀ, EzÉÆAzÀÄ «±ÉõÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÉAzÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀt¹ ¤ªÉñÀ£À ¤ÃqÀĪÀ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ ªÀiÁ£Àå ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, ¥ËgÁqÀ½vÀ - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9876 WP No. 18250 of 2022 ¤zÉÃð±À£Á®AiÀÄ gÀªÀjUÉ vÀªÀÄä ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£É ¸À°è¸À®Ä PÉÆÃjzÉ” 7. As could be seen from the above, the TMC specifically informed the Planning Director that the case of the petitioner was required to be considered as a special case. If this resolution is viewed in the background of the fact that a similar resolution had been passed eight years ago, it would clearly indicate that the TMC felt it was morally bound to ensure that the petitioner was granted a free site, which fact requires to be appreciated. 8. If a Municipal Council had passed two resolutions passed 8 years apart, promising him a free site of about 600 sq ft, by treating it as special case, it was expected that the Planning Director (a delegate of the Deputy Commissioner) ought to have taken this into consideration and accepted the recommendation, by on the other hand, the office of the Deputy Commissioner chose to throw cold water - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9876 WP No. 18250 of 2022 on the entire proposal by falling upon technicalities found in a Government Order, which was obviously not framed keeping in mind cases such as the case of the petitioner, who was a freedom fighter. The Planning Director responded to the proposal of the TMC by stating that a proposal should be re- submitted only if the claim of the petitioner could come within the parameters set out in a Government circular. 9. It appears that the issue was thus sent to a cold storage and no steps were taken and consequently, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.13383/2017 and this Court passed an order in the following terms: “6. A perusal of the resolution dated 14.06.2016 would make it clear that it was resolved to allot site to the petitioner and the said resolution has been forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner. The communication by the Chief Executive Officer at Annexure-'R2' cannot in any way water down the resolution - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:9876 WP No. 18250 of 2022 nor can it be treated to be explanation to the resolution and deserves to be ignored. The Deputy Commissioner is required to consider granting of permission or refusal strictly in accordance with the scope of power conferred under Section 72 of the Act. The necessity or proprietary of passing of the resolution cannot be gone into by the Deputy Commissioner. The power under Section 72 exercised by the Deputy Commissioner is mere a power of refusal if it is found that the resolution is opposed to law rather than a positive right given to the Deputy Commissioner to decide on the correctness or otherwise of the proposal sent by the second respondent. 7. Keeping in mind the above observations, the Deputy Commissioner is to decide on the resolution that has been forwarded for his approval by the second respondent. Such consideration to be made keeping in mind the observations made above, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off subject to the above observations.” - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:9876 WP No. 18250 of 2022 10. Pursuant to the said order, the Municipal Council addressed a communication to the Planning Director, once again requesting him to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the order passed by this Court. 11. Once again, since no steps were taken, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for a direction to enforce the resolution dated 14.06.2016. 12. While the petitioner was still harboring hopes that his dream would be fulfilled by this Court, a cruel blow was dealt by the TMC, which had given him the dream that he would be allotted a free site. The TMC passed a resolution on 20.09.2024 in the following terms: «µÀAiÀÄ:18/4 C§Äݯï gÀªÀÇ¥sï ©£ï C§Äݯï gÀ²Ãzï, ¸ÁévÀAvÀæ ºÉÆÃgÁlUÁgÀgÀÄ, ºÉƸÀ UÀÄgÀ¥Àà£À ¥Á¼Àå ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ gÀªÀgÀÄ ¤ªÉñÀ£À ¤ÃqÀ®Ä PÉÆÃjgÀĪÀAvÉ F »AzÉ ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:18.03.2008 «µÀAiÀÄ ¸ÀASÉå: 03 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¢£ÁAPÀ:14.06.2016 «µÀAiÀÄ ¸ÀASÉå:07 gÀ°è wêÀiÁð¤¹gÀĪÀ «µÀAiÀÄUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ªÀiÁ£Àå GZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è zÁR¯ÁVgÀĪÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀt ¸ÀASÉå:qÀ§Äè妣ÀA.18250/2022 gÀAvÉ ªÀÄvÉÆÛªÉÄä ZÀað¹ wêÀiÁð£À PÉÊUÉƼÀÄîªÀ «ZÁgÀ. wêÀiÁð£À «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß ZÀað¸À¯ÁV, F »AzÉ ¥ÀÅgÀ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:18.03.2008 «µÀAiÀÄ ¸ÀASÉå:03 gÀ°è - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:9876 WP No. 18250 of 2022 ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀjUÉ ¥ÀÅgÀ¸À¨sÁ ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ°è 15*40 CrUÀ¼À ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ®Ä ¸À¨sÉ ¸ÀªÁð£ÀĪÀÄvÀ¢AzÀ wêÀiÁð¤¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj wêÀiÁð£ÀzÀAvÉ, ªÀiÁ£Àå f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ½UÉ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¸ÀzÉà EgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:14.06.2016 «µÀAiÀÄ ¸ÀASÉå:07 gÀ°è F »AzÉ ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀjUÉ ¤ªÉñÀ£À ¤ÃqÀĪÀ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ oÀgÁªÀÅ DVzÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ E£ÉÆߪÉÄä ªÀiÁ£Àå f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ½UÉ F §UÉÎ ªÀÄgÀÄ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£É ¸À°è¸À®Ä ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ°è wêÀiÁð¤¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ªÀiÁ£Àå GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ¥ÀæPÀgÀt ¸ÀASÉå:qÀ§Äè妣ÀA.13383/2017 gÀ ¤zÉÃð±À£ÀzÀAvÉ ªÀiÁ£Àå f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, PÉÆïÁgÀ f¯Éè, PÉÆïÁgÀ gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁ®ÆgÀÄ ¥ÀÅgÀ¸À¨sÉUÉ FUÁUÀ¯Éà ªÀÄAdÆgÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ d«Ää£À°è (¤ªÉñÀ£À gÀ»vÀjUÉ) PÀæªÀĪÀ»¸À®Ä ªÀiÁ£Àå f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¤zÉÃð²¹gÀĪÀ »£É߯ÉAiÀÄ°è CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ¥Àæ¸ÀPÀÛ ªÀiÁ®ÆgÀÄ ¥ÀÅgÀ¸À¨sÁ ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ ¥ÀÅgÀ¸À¨sÉ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ ¸ÀA:ªÀiÁ¥ÀÅ/PÀA±Á/¹Dgï/66/2016-17, ¢£ÁAPÀ:06.11.2020 gÀAvÉ ªÀiÁUÀðzÀ±Àð£À PÉÆÃj ªÀiÁ£Àå f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ½UÉ ¥ÀvÀæ gÀªÁ¤¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F ¸ÀA§AzsÀ F vÀºÀ¯ïªÀgÉUÀÆ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¥ÀævÀÄåvÀÛgÀ §A¢gÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¥ÀÅgÀ¸À¨sÁ C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄ 1964 PÀ®A 72 gÀ°è ºÁUÀÆ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ £ÀqÀªÀ½ DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå: £ÀCE/129/nJAr/2002, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ:02.06.2003 gÀ DzÉñÀzÀ°è ¸ÁévÀAvÀæ ºÉÆÃgÁlUÁgÀjUÉ ¤ªÉñÀ£À ¤ÃqÀ®Ä CªÀPÁ±À PÀ°à¹ PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®è ºÁUÀÆ D±ÀæAiÀÄ §qÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ°è ¤ªÉñÀ£À ¤ÃqÀ®Ä, ¸ÀzÀj ¥sÀ¯Á£ÀĨsÀ«AiÀÄÄ ªÀiÁ®ÆgÀÄ ¥ÀÅgÀ¸À¨sÁ ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ SÁAiÀÄA ¤ªÁ¹AiÀiÁVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. DzÀÝjAzÀ, D±ÀæAiÀÄ §qÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ°è ¤ªÉñÀ£À ¤ÃqÀ®Ä gÀºÁ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸À¨sÉUÉ ªÀiÁ»w ¤ÃrzÀgÀÄ. ªÉÄîÌAqÀ J¯Áè CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀt¹, ¥Àj²Ã°¹ ZÀað¸À¯ÁV ¢£ÁAPÀ:18.03.2008 «µÀAiÀÄ ¸ÀASÉå:03 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¢£ÁAPÀ:14.06.2016 «µÀAiÀÄ ¸ÀASÉå:07gÀ°è wêÀiÁð¤¹gÀĪÀ oÀgÁªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß gÀzÀÄÝUÉƽ¹, CzÀgÀAvÉ PÀæªÀĪÀ»¸À®Ä ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀªÁð£ÀĪÀÄvÀ¢AzÀ wêÀiÁð¤¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. 13. As could be seen from the above, the Municipal Council, 8 years after it recommended that the case of the petitioner was to be considered as the special - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:9876 WP No. 18250 of 2022 case, backtracked and resiled from its earlier stand and proceeded to withdraw the two resolutions that it had passed in favour of the petitioner i.e., resolution dated 18.09.2008 and 14.06.2016. Thus, a dream which was laid out to the petitioner in 2008 was destroyed in 2024 by the TMC. 14. The petitioner by way of amendment is thereby forced to challenge this resolution, by which the earlier two resolutions, by which it had resolved to recommend the allotment of site, has been cancelled. 15. As could be seen from the aforementioned resolution dated 20.09.2024, it is beyond dispute that a resolution was passed first in the year 2008 and for the second time in the year 2016 recommending a site be granted to the petitioner. If the Municipal Council had promised a freedom fighter, who is more than 90 years as of today, that he would be granted a site measuring 15’ X 40’ 16 years ago and was made to approach this Court twice for - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:9876 WP No. 18250 of 2022 implementation of a resolution, there cannot be a greater injustice caused to the petitioner. In fact, this action of the TMC would basically indicate that it has been making false promises to a person who is close to being a centenarian and who had fought for the freedom of this Country. Obviously, such an action of the TMC in going back on its solvent word would be a travesty of justice if it is allowed to stand. 16. A freedom fighter, who has fought for the freedom of this Country, and hailing from a small town like Malur, deserves to be treated with at least a modicum of respect and he should not be made to tread the corridors of the Court to secure a promise held out to him in 2008 and that too to secure only a site measuring 15’ X 40’ ft in a town like Malur. 17. It is no doubt true that Section 72 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, does require the approval of the Government for a Municipality to dispose of the property of the Municipality. This provision is - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:9876 WP No. 18250 of 2022 essentially meant to safeguard the property of the Municipality and prevent its abuse by the Municipality. 18. However, in a case where the Municipal Council has passed two resolutions, one in the year 2008 and another in the year 2016, recommending the allotment of a small site measuring 15’ X 40’ ft. i.e., about 600 sq.ft., to a freedom fighter by treating it as a special case, the reliance on Section 72 to deny him a site after promising him that he would be granted a site would be manifestly unfair. 19. The cancellation of the resolution, in my view, is highly arbitrary and leads to a very unjust situation, which would defeat the hopes of a person, who fought for the freedom of the Country and who is more than 90 years, as of now. 20. I am therefore of the view that, it would be appropriate to quash the resolution dated 20.09.2024 and it is accordingly quashed. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:9876 WP No. 18250 of 2022 21. Since the Municipality has raised the question of getting the prior approval of the Government under Section 72, in my view, in the extraordinary situation prevalent in this case, of a 90 year old freedom fighter has been seeking for fulfillment of the promise given to him by the TMC more than 16 years ago of the grant of a small site, in my view, it would be appropriate to direct the Government to accord its approval for the allotment of this site. 22. Hopefully, with this the hope of the petitioner that he fought for a country which would be just fair and equal would not go in vain and his struggle along with million others would stand vindicated. 23. It is needless to state that this direction shall not be treated as a precedent in any other case and this order being passed in the extraordinary circumstances involved in this case i.e., the expectation of a freedom fighter, who was promised - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:9876 WP No. 18250 of 2022 a free site by the Municipal Council by passing two resolutions, is required to be fulfilled by both the TMC and the State. 24. This writ petition is accordingly allowed. 25. The Government shall pass necessary orders in this regard within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and report compliance to this Court within a month. 26. Though this petition is disposed of by this order, the matter shall be re-listed on 07.04.2025 to report compliance. 27. 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.: 85