Government not committed to give land to BTC
The Karnataka Government has filed its objections before the Supreme Court contending that the government had the right to determine the tenure of lease of land occupied by Bangalore Turf Club and that it was under no legal obligation to give land for the club to relocate.
It may be recalled that when the Special Leave Petition came up for hearing in Supreme Court earlier this month, the Division Bench had asked the Advocate General of Karnataka if the government was intending to file any counter to the contentions raised by BTC and other petitioners or whether they should proceed with the matter. The Advocate General had sought two weeks’ time and the court had granted the same. The government has in the meanwhile filed its objection and the petitioners including BTC have been given two weeks’ time to reply to the same.
Countering all the arguments submitted by the turf club in favour of being retained at the existing place, the government has emphasized that it was under no obligation to provide alternate land on lease to the petitioner and this stand had already been upheld by the High Court of Karnataka. Without conceding any legal right to the Petitioner to claim grant of alternate land, the State Government considered the request of the Petitioner for grant of land on lease and has identified 30 to 90 acres of land situated in survey number 79 of Sonnehalli, Bangalore Taluk where the application of the Petitioner could be favorably considered. Apart from that there are no large extents of land available in and around Bangalore City that can be given on lease to the Petitioner. The decision to consider the request of the Petitioner for grant of land on lease, does not in any way admit of any right to claim such lease of land.
The government has submitted that the move to shift the race course started as far back as 1964 and that it had requested the Petitioner to shift to a new venue as the presence of race course in the heart of the city was causing lot of difficulties including traffic congestion and several attempts made since had been resisted by the club. The execution of the supplementary lease deed was made with a specific understanding that the Petitioner should move to a new location by the expiry of lease deed on December 31, 2009. The Petitioner failed to take any steps for shifting the race course. The Petitioner waited till the last minute and filed a Writ Petition when the lease period was due to expire. This clearly shows that the Petitioner is not interested in shifting.
The government has contended that the Petitioner is managed by an elected body which changes frequently and each time there is a change in the Managing Committee, the body takes a different decision regarding the decision to shifting to a new place. The Petitioner is therefore to share all the blame for the present situation. The race course land is an important lung space which should be made available to the residents of Bangalore. The club has on various occasions not accepted alternate lands proposed by the government and rejected the same as being not suitable for building a new race course. The principle of legitimate expectation or principles of Promissory Estoppel has no application to the facts of the present case. The state has not given any promise to give an alternate land though the government, by way of concession, has shown certain lands to the Petitioners. The State government had no objection to give the land at Chikkajala/Doddajala which the High Court has nullified.
The State government further states that the claim that several persons are depending upon racing activity for their livelihood is incorrect. On the other hand, several families have lost their source of livelihood and have become destitute because of involvement in racing activity. The contention that stopping of racing activity would result in huge loss to the State Exchequer is not a consideration for allowing the Petitioner to continue in the same location. The Petitioner ought to have made alternative arrangements by this time as the Petitioner was put on sufficient advance notice about the requirement to shift to a new location.
The Memorandum of Association of Bangalore Turf Club Limited itself makes it clear that the object for establishing of the company is to take over the assets and liabilities of the present unincorporated club know as Bangalore Race Club together with the existing establishment outgoing including leasehold interests. The Petitioner is a party to the lease deed executed on 26-7-2008 and according to this Lease Deed; the duration of the Lease expired on 31-12-2009. The Petitioner has been requesting for alternate land to enabling them to shift the Race Course and it is not open to the Petitioner to now contend there is an absolute Grand in their favour.
It may be recalled that when the Special Leave Petition came up for hearing in Supreme Court earlier this month, the Division Bench had asked the Advocate General of Karnataka if the government was intending to file any counter to the contentions raised by BTC and other petitioners or whether they should proceed with the matter. The Advocate General had sought two weeks’ time and the court had granted the same. The government has in the meanwhile filed its objection and the petitioners including BTC have been given two weeks’ time to reply to the same.
Countering all the arguments submitted by the turf club in favour of being retained at the existing place, the government has emphasized that it was under no obligation to provide alternate land on lease to the petitioner and this stand had already been upheld by the High Court of Karnataka. Without conceding any legal right to the Petitioner to claim grant of alternate land, the State Government considered the request of the Petitioner for grant of land on lease and has identified 30 to 90 acres of land situated in survey number 79 of Sonnehalli, Bangalore Taluk where the application of the Petitioner could be favorably considered. Apart from that there are no large extents of land available in and around Bangalore City that can be given on lease to the Petitioner. The decision to consider the request of the Petitioner for grant of land on lease, does not in any way admit of any right to claim such lease of land.
The government has submitted that the move to shift the race course started as far back as 1964 and that it had requested the Petitioner to shift to a new venue as the presence of race course in the heart of the city was causing lot of difficulties including traffic congestion and several attempts made since had been resisted by the club. The execution of the supplementary lease deed was made with a specific understanding that the Petitioner should move to a new location by the expiry of lease deed on December 31, 2009. The Petitioner failed to take any steps for shifting the race course. The Petitioner waited till the last minute and filed a Writ Petition when the lease period was due to expire. This clearly shows that the Petitioner is not interested in shifting.
The government has contended that the Petitioner is managed by an elected body which changes frequently and each time there is a change in the Managing Committee, the body takes a different decision regarding the decision to shifting to a new place. The Petitioner is therefore to share all the blame for the present situation. The race course land is an important lung space which should be made available to the residents of Bangalore. The club has on various occasions not accepted alternate lands proposed by the government and rejected the same as being not suitable for building a new race course. The principle of legitimate expectation or principles of Promissory Estoppel has no application to the facts of the present case. The state has not given any promise to give an alternate land though the government, by way of concession, has shown certain lands to the Petitioners. The State government had no objection to give the land at Chikkajala/Doddajala which the High Court has nullified.
The State government further states that the claim that several persons are depending upon racing activity for their livelihood is incorrect. On the other hand, several families have lost their source of livelihood and have become destitute because of involvement in racing activity. The contention that stopping of racing activity would result in huge loss to the State Exchequer is not a consideration for allowing the Petitioner to continue in the same location. The Petitioner ought to have made alternative arrangements by this time as the Petitioner was put on sufficient advance notice about the requirement to shift to a new location.
The Memorandum of Association of Bangalore Turf Club Limited itself makes it clear that the object for establishing of the company is to take over the assets and liabilities of the present unincorporated club know as Bangalore Race Club together with the existing establishment outgoing including leasehold interests. The Petitioner is a party to the lease deed executed on 26-7-2008 and according to this Lease Deed; the duration of the Lease expired on 31-12-2009. The Petitioner has been requesting for alternate land to enabling them to shift the Race Course and it is not open to the Petitioner to now contend there is an absolute Grand in their favour.
@the exchairman was too confident that yeddy is ready to allot land for btc,
ReplyDeletealas the govt is playing hide and seek game,perhaps
they want this land to be denotified so that it can be alloted to MPs AND MLAs who are poor and landless in this city, what a great service to the peoples reps.?
great game is on
hope wisdom guides the BTC AND KRHOA
this is the moment to stand united and face the situation.
The only hope now is THE SUPREME COURT
keeping fingers crossed
thanks for your article
mr.sharan
easwaran