BENGALURU: Observing that Bagalkot MLA Veeranna Charantimath ought to have recused from the meeting in which a resolution was passed to allot a huge piece of industrial land to his brother, Mallikarjun C Charantimath, in Bagalkot, the Karnataka High Court said that the latter is entitled to only for 1.33 acres of industrial land, and not for the 7.39 acres, as per the resolution passed in the meeting.
Taking serious exception to suppression of the MLA’s participation in the meeting in a petition filed before a single judge, a division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur at the Dharwad Bench of the High Court, partly allowed the appeal filed by the Bagalkot Town Development Authority.
The appeal was filed against the order dated July 17, 2020, passed by a single judge to consider the representation made by Mallikarjun to implement the resolution of December 17, 2012, to allot industrial land to the extent of 7.39 acres to him by the Authority. In addition to the payment of compensation for acquiring 6.6 acres for the industrial project, of which 1.33 acres was converted for industrial purpose, a decision was taken to allot a commercial site measuring 7.39 acres to him.
“We ascertained from the Bar that Veeranna Charantimath is none other than the brother of petitioner Mallikarjun C Charantimath. The resolution which was questioned prima facie, shows his participation in the board meetings where the decision to allot a huge plot of land in favour of his brother has been taken,” the court said.
On the conduct of the MLA, representing BJP, the court said, “we are unsure that this fact was notified to the single judge, either; this is a grave and culpable lapse on the part of the petitioner, if not the other side; this MLA ought to have recused from the board meeting when its agenda was the grant of land to his brother...”
“The apex court has time and again observed that the participation of relatives in the decision-making process taints that decision and renders it vulnerable to challenge. The very suppression of an essential fact by a litigant seeking writ remedy, itself can be a ground for non-suiting him. However, we refrain ourselves from taking this extreme view, since the petitioner has lost the land and he is otherwise entitled to grant of an industrial site, of course of a reasonable size under the law,” the High Court noted.