The court established that procedural impropriety and lack of jurisdiction in cancelling a building license and khata, without due notice, violate principles of natural justice, rendering such orders void.

ORAL ORDER

1. Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:-

(i) "Issue a writ of Certiorari quashing the Order dated 2-8-2017 passed by the Resp.No.2 (vide Annexure-A) and consequently set-side the Order dated 27-11-2013 passed by the Resp.No.3 (at Annexure-B);

(ii) In the event, if it is held that prior permission of the Government ought to have been taken before registering the sale certificate on 21-8-1991, direct the Resp.No.1 to accord its approval as required u/sec.72(2) of Karnataka Municipalities Act for the auction held on 20-8-1977 in respect of property bearing Sy.No.123 (new Sy.No.123/2) of Periyapatna measuring 1 acre 7 gts;

(iii) Direct the Resp.No.2 to give his sanction for usage of aforesaid land for purposes other than specially assigned purpose (Pond-Katte) as required u/sec.71 of Land Revenue Act;

(iv) Pass such other writ, Order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."

2. Respondent No.3 – the Chief Officer, Periyapatna Town Municipal Council, had issued a public notice proposing to conduct a public auction of three immovable properties belonging to the Municipal Council. Pursuant thereto, a public auction was conducted on 20.08.1977, in which the father of the petitioner participated and was declared the highest and successful bidder in respect of land bearing Survey No.123, subsequently renumbered as Survey No.123/2, measuring 1 acre 7 guntas, for a consideration of ₹5,030/-.

3. Though the auction had taken place in the year 1977, formal approval of the bid was accorded later, only on 03.06.1988, the Town Municipal Council passed a resolution approving the auction bid in favour of the petitioner’s father and resolved to register the property in his name.

4. Since registration did not immediately follow, the matter was thereafter placed before the Zilla Parishad, Mysuru, which, by its Official Memorandum dated 14.08.1991, approved the auction and sale in favour of the petitioner’s father.

5. Consequent upon such approval, a sale certificate was executed on 21.08.1991 and duly registered as Document No.793/1991–92. Pursuant thereto, the khata of the property was mutated in the name of the petitioner’s father, and his possession and title stood reflected in the municipal records.

6. The petitioner’s father thereafter executed a registered gift deed dated 27.06.2013 in favour of the petitioner. Following the said gift, the khata was mutated in the petitioner’s name.

7. The petitioner applied for and was granted a plan sanction and building licence by the Municipal Council on 21.09.2013 for the construction of a school on the subject property.

8. At this stage, two individuals claiming to be public- spirited persons raised objections alleging that the original auction and sale in favour of the petitioner’s father were unauthorised and illegal. A complaint was filed before the Tahsildar, who conducted an enquiry and dismissed the complaint on 26.11.2013.

9. However, on the very next day, i.e., 27.11.2013, Respondent No.3 cancelled the building plan and licence granted to the petitioner, purportedly on the basis of the very same complaint.

10. Aggrieved by the cancellation of the licence, the petitioner preferred a revision before Respondent No.2 – the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the revision, holding that the Municipal Council ought to have obtained prior permission from the competent authority under Section 72 (2) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act , 1964, before auctioning the municipal property.

11. It is the said Order of the Deputy Comm