Dismissed

The Commissioner v. the Principal Secretary

Karnataka HC5 Nov 2019WA/100278/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ appeals challenging an order allowing a W.P. were admitted for final hearing. The court noted that the single judge's directions were already complied with by the authorities regarding plot bifurcation. Consequently, the court held the legal issue was rendered academic and dismissed the appeals.

What did the court decide?

The appeals are dismissed with the observation that the decision shall not be treated as precedent.

The Commissioner Vs the Principal Secretary — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.G.M. PATIL

¶7

W.A.NO.100278 OF 2018 (LB-RES) C/W W.A.NO.100001 OF 2019

¶8

IN W.A.NO.100278/2018

¶9

BETWEEN

¶10

THE COMMISSIONER BALLARI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BALLARI.

¶11

... APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. Y.LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND

¶14

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

¶15

THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING, M.S. BUILDING, 4^{T H} GATE, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

¶16

¶17

DR.M.LINGARAJA S/O M. HALAPA AGED ABUT: 45 YAERS, R/O: PLOT NO.17, 1^{S T} FLOOR, SHIVAGIRI NAGAR, HAVAMBHAVI, BALLARI-583101.

¶18

... RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. RAVI HOSAMANI, AGA FOR R1; SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶20

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING THIS HON’BLE COURT TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.04.2018 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.110759/ 2017, PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND FOR SUCH OTHER RELIEFS.

¶21

IN W.A.NO.100001/2019

¶22

BETWEEN

¶23

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGLAURU-560001.

¶24

THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING, M.S. BUILDING, 4^{T H} GATE, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGLAURU-560001.

¶25

... APPELLANTS

¶26

(BY SRI. RAVI HOSAMANI, AGA)

¶27

¶28

AND

¶29

DR.M.LINGARAJ S/O M. HALAPPA AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: NOT KNOWN, RESIDENT AT:PLOT NO.17, 1^{S T} FLOOR, SHIVGIRI NAGAR, HAVAMBHAVI, BELLARY-583101.

¶30

THE COMMISSIONER, BELLARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BELLARY-583101.

¶31

... RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, ADV., FOR R1; SRI. Y. LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADV., FOR R2)

¶33

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING THIS HON’BLE COURT TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.04.2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.110759/2017, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶34

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE, J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

Appeals are admitted for hearing.

¶37

With the consent of the learned

¶38

counsel for parties, same are heard finally.

¶39

¶40

In these intra court appeals, the

¶41

appellants have assailed the validity of the order dated 16.04.2018 in W.P.No.110759/2017 (LBRES) passed by the learned Single Judge by which writ petition preferred by respondent No.3 has been allowed.

¶42

When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for respondent No.3 has produced before us a copy of the order dated 28.04.2018 passed by the Commissioner, Urban Development Authority, Bellary, by which it has permitted bifurcation of the plot in compliance with the directions contained in the order dated 16.04.2018. The aforesaid memorandum is taken on record.

¶43

In view of the fact that the directions issued by the learned Single Judge have already been complied with by the Commissioner, Urban

¶44

¶45

Development Authority, Bellary, the issue involved in these appeals render academic. However, needless to state that it will be open to the appellants to raise all such contentions which are available to them in law in an appropriate cases and the aforesaid decision shall not be treated as precedent.

¶46

With the aforesaid observation, the appeals are dismissed.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

yan

The Commissioner v. the Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner v. the Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Naseema W/O Abdul Mulla Vs the Department of Primary and

Sri.M.H.Anavati S/O Hasanasab Vs the State of Karnataka

The Deputy Chief Engineer Vs Guusiddapp Chanabasappa Ghali

M/S Infotech Computer Educatuion Vs the Karnataka Institute of Medical Science

Chandrashekar Sridhar Naik, Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S.Arjun Traders Vs the State of Karnataka