Allowed

Mrs. Parvathi Shankar Hanumsheth v. Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC25 Sept 2019WP/103380/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order refusing a single layout plan and plot amalgamation. The Court set aside the impugned order, viewing the land excess question as settled by a prior civil decree, and directed the Development Authority to reconsider the matter affording a hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; Respondent directed to reconsider matter with necessary hearing opportunity within three months.

Mrs. Parvathi Shankar Hanumsheth Vs Deputy Commissioner — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶2

DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.103380/2017

¶7

& WRIT PETITION NO.106638/2017 (LB-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MRS. PARVATHI SHANKAR HANUMSHETH, AGE: 73 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE, R/O CCB NO.110, CONGRESS ROAD, TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI, BY HER GPA HOLDER, MR.SHYAM S/O SUDHIR LAD, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O VAMAN RESIDENCY, GROUND FLOOR, NANAWADI ROAD, BELAGAVI.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI.HEMANT R CHANDANGOUDAR, ADVOCATE, SRI.SHARAD V MAGADUM, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI DISTRICT, BELAGAVI.

¶14

BELAGAVI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BELAGAVI BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶15

BELAGAVI CITY CORPORATION, BELAGAVI, BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT.SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP FOR R1, SRI.M.A.HULYAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2, SRI.JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶18

¶19

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 05.01.2017 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.

¶20

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner has challenged the order at Annexure-E whereby the Development Authority has refused to consider the application for grant of single layout plan and for amalgamation of plots.

¶23

The counsel for the petitioner submits that on an earlier occasion the order declaring the land as excess land under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act came to be challenged before this Court in W.P.No.37077/1995 and connected matters. It is submitted that liberty was reserved to the parties to file civil suit asserting their rights.

¶24

It is noted that O.S.No.601/1998 came to be filed specifically seeking relief as regards to the order passed under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling

¶25

¶26

and Regulation) Act. The said suit came to be decreed declaring that the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner dated 13.07.1997 was not binding upon the plaintiffs in the said suit who are the vendors of the petitioners herein. Hence, it is contended that the question of petitioners’ vendor having excess land is no longer open for reconsideration. It is submitted that the respondent No.2 on the basis of the opinion enclosed along with the order at Annexure-E while observing that the holding of the vendors of the petitioner was in excess of the prescribed land holding limit has passed the impugned order. It is further submitted that the master plan that has come into force on 15.02.2014 also does not demarcate the property of the petitioner in Sy.No.161/1C and Sy.No.161/1A as a park. Hence, it is contended that the order at Annexure-E requires reconsideration in light of the subsequent developments including change in the master plan and also ought to

¶27

¶28

be reconsidered in light of the order of conversion and also order passed in O.S.No.601/1998.

¶29

Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 states that they would reconsider the matter afresh.

¶30

Accordingly, the impugned order at Annexure-E is set aside and respondent No.2 is directed to reconsider the matter in light of the discussion recording the contentions as above in accordance with law. While so reconsidering in the event any adverse order is to be passed, necessary opportunity of hearing to be afforded to the petitioner.

¶31

The respondent No.2 is at liberty to call for such other documents and call upon the petitioner to satisfy as regards necessary clarifications while disposing of the representation of the petitioner for grant of approval of single layout plan as well as amalgamation of plots. Accordingly, the petitions are disposed with a direction for reconsideration by

¶32

¶33

respondent No.2 which is to be made within a period not later than three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

Mrs. Parvathi Shankar Hanumsheth v. Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Parvathi Shankar Hanumsheth v. Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri.Narayan S/O Appayya Tattimani Vs Smt.Parvati W/O Shviaji Manoji

Sajay Mahaveer Pujeri, Vs State of Karnataka

Shri. Shekyya Gangayya Hiremath Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Dilshad W/O Mohammad Gouse Sarkwas Vs Sri.Mohammed Yasuf S/O Adamsab Karadagikar

Channanaboraiah S/O Channanaboraiah Vs Managing Director/Disciplinary Authority

Vimal W/O Ratnakar Kurne Vs the Deputy Commissioner