Nagegowda Vs. State of Karnataka and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....or work is accorded, if satisfied that such sanction was accorded in consequence of any material misrepresentation or fraudulent statement contained in the notice given or information furnished under section 187, may by order, in writing, cancel such sanction for reasons to be recorded in writing and any building or work commenced, erected or done shall be deemed to have commenced, erected or done by such sanction. the proviso directs the chief officer to extend a reasonable opportunity to the person affected to show cause as to why the order should not be made. - this provision of law invests in the municipal council or chief officer of the town municipal council, at any time after the sanction for building or work is accorded, if satisfied that such sanction was accorded in consequence of any material misrepresentation or fraudulent statement contained in the notice given or information furnished under section 187, may by order, in writing, cancel such sanction for reasons to be recorded in writing and any building or work commenced, erected or done shall be deemed to have commenced, erected or done by such sanction......of the notice of suspension dated 1-8-2008 annexure-e and the order of cancellation of licence annexure-f do not disclose either recording of satisfaction of the chief officer or material particulars of the misrepresentation or fraudulent statements contained in the information furnished by the petitioner under section 187 for grant of licence nor recording of reasons to cancel the licence. the opinion of the legal advisor of the town municipal council that the petitioner was not the owner of the immovable property in question, is neither satisfaction nor justification to cancel the licence.4. the petitioner may have suffered a judgment and decree dismissing the suit instituted by him before a competent civil court but that is not found in annexure-e or f. the orders impugned do not reflect the alleged invalidation of the rights of the petitioner over the immovable property by a civil court, which, perhaps if considered by the chief officer, may be justification for cancellation.5. suffice it to state that since the orders impugned do not qualify or comply with the mandate of section 188 of the act, calls for interference.in the result, the petitions are allowed. the notice.....

Judgment:

ORDER

Ram Mohan Reddy, J.

1. The petitioner successfully had his name recorded in the registers of the respondent-Municipality as the kathedar of immovable property bearing assessment No. 1289 and having applied for, obtained sanction of the building plan followed by its construction. At that stage, the 3rd respondent filed with the Town Municipality objections to the sanction of building plan on the allegation of misrepresentation, which the Town Municipality, referred to its legal advisor who opined that the petitioner was not the true owner of the immovable property in question and as a consequence, by order dated 1-10-2008 Annexure-E suspended the licence and directed the petitioner to demolish the construction within three days therefrom. Thereafterwards by order dated 3-11-2008 Annexure-F, the Town Municipality Council cancelled the licence. Hence this petition.

2. Section 188 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act'), provides for initiation of action in respect of according sanction of building plan due to misrepresentation. This provision of law invests in the Municipal Council or Chief Officer of the Town Municipal Council, at any time after the sanction for building or work is accorded, if satisfied that such sanction was accorded in consequence of any material misrepresentation or fraudulent statement contained in the notice given or information furnished under Section 187, may by order, in writing, cancel such sanction for reasons to be recorded in writing and any building or work commenced, erected or done shall be deemed to have commenced, erected or done by such sanction. The proviso directs the Chief Officer to extend a reasonable opportunity to the person affected to show cause as to why the order should not be made.

3. An examination of the notice of suspension dated 1-8-2008 Annexure-E and the order of cancellation of licence Annexure-F do not disclose either recording of satisfaction of the Chief Officer or material particulars of the misrepresentation or fraudulent statements contained in the information furnished by the petitioner under Section 187 for grant of licence nor recording of reasons to cancel the licence. The opinion of the legal advisor of the Town Municipal Council that the petitioner was not the owner of the immovable property in question, is neither satisfaction nor justification to cancel the licence.

4. The petitioner may have suffered a judgment and decree dismissing the suit instituted by him before a Competent Civil Court but that is not found in Annexure-E or F. The orders impugned do not reflect the alleged invalidation of the rights of the petitioner over the immovable property by a Civil Court, which, perhaps if considered by the Chief Officer, may be justification for cancellation.

5. Suffice it to state that since the orders impugned do not qualify or comply with the mandate of Section 188 of the Act, calls for interference.

In the result, the petitions are allowed. The notice Annexure-E and order Annexure-F are quashed and the proceeding remitted to the Chief Officer-2nd respondent for consideration in accordance with law, after extending the petitioner reasonable opportunity to show cause.