Partly allowed

Smt.M.J.Seetha v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Mar 2020WA/100226/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed the writ appeals against the impugned order dismissing writ petitions regarding road widening and land conversion. The court quashed the impugned order due to lack of application of mind, absence of reasons, and reliance on a disputed release deed, setting it aside and restoring proceedings to the Corporation.

What did the court decide?

Order of the learned Single Judge set aside; proceedings restored to the file of Respondent No.3 to pass a speaking order within 3 months.

Smt.M.J.Seetha Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF MARCH 2020

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI

¶7

WRIT APPEAL Nos.100226-100227 of 2019 (LB-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT.M.J.SEETHA AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: AKSHAYA, PLOT NO.547/A/1, 3RD CROSS, BHAGYA NAGAR, BELAGAVI, TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI-590002.

¶10

SHRI.M.G. JNANADEVA AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED, R/O: AKSHAYA, PLOT NO.547/A/1, 3RD CROSS, BHAGYA NAGAR,BELAGAVI, TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI-590002.

¶11

... APPELLANTS

¶12

(BY SRI. F.V. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGLAURU-580001.

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BELAGAVI, TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI-590002.

¶16

THE CORPORATION BELAGAVI

¶17

¶18

REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI, TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI-590002.

¶19

THE BELAGAVI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, HUDAKO COLONY, ASHOK NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590016.

¶20

... RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GA FOR R1 AND R2. SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADV. FOR R3 SRI.M.A. HULYAL, ADV. FOR R5)

¶22

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT 1961 PRAYING THAT THE ORDER OF LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 28.3.2019 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NOS.106525-106526 OF 2017 MAY KINDLY BE SET ASIDE AND THE WRIT APPEAL MAY KINDLY BE ALLOWED WITH A DIRECTION TO RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 4 TO PAY THE COMPENSATION TO THE AREA USED FOR WIDENING OF THE ROAD IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶23

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, S.SUJATHA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

These intra court appeals are directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 28.03.2019 passed in Writ Petition Nos.106525106526 of 2017 whereby the writ petitions filed by the appellants/petitioners have been dismissed.

¶26

¶27

Appellant No.1 claims to be the purchaser of CTS bearing No.5384 measuring 599.5/9 sq. yards i.e., 5 guntas through a registered sale deed dated 08.09.2000 from Hulabatti family for the sale consideration of Rs.2,95,000/-. On the application submitted by the said appellant No.1, the Government has passed an order for conversion of land into commercial purpose on 01.09.2007, pursuant to which, the appellants have paid requisite fees to Belgavi Urban Development Authority (BUDA). The appellants had filed an application to the Corporation seeking permission to construct commercial building. Appellant No.1 has executed gift deed in favour of appellant No.2 relating to the property in question. In view of no permission granted as sought for, to proceed with the construction of the commercial building, writ petition Nos.106592 of 2015 and 107313 of 2015 were filed by the appellants. This Court directed the 3^rd

¶28

¶29

respondent to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶30

In compliance of the aforesaid order, the

¶31

order dated 25.08.2016 is said to have been passed which was impugned before the learned Single Judge in W.P. Nos.106525-106526 of 2017. The learned Single Judge has proceeded to dismiss the writ petitions primarily relying on the release deed dated 07.11.2007, the original of which was exhibited before the Court through the learned counsel for the respondent-BUDA. The original file placed before us no doubt indicates the release deed said to have been submitted by the appellant No.1, however, it is depicted that the total measurement released by the petitioner is shown as 599.5 sq. yards. It is significant to note that in the said release deed signature of the petitioner No.1/appellant No.1 is found before the last line which is relevant for

¶32

¶33

adjudication of the dispute between the parties and the same reads thus:

¶34

“that I am ready (to) give the land for use of road purpose.”

¶35

This release deed cannot be considered to be the prime document in deciding the dispute on hand for two reasons i.e. (1) No signature of the appellant No.1 found after the last line as indicated above (2) the total extent of land said to have been released indicates the entire 5 guntas of land which is not in conformity with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶36

Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that there is no dispute relating to the extent of 237.78 sq. yards which is the actual measurement of land purchased by the first appellant through a registered sale deed dated 08.09.2000.

¶37

¶38

Nextly, the learned counsel for the

¶39

appellants would submit that Section 32(5) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 (the ‘Act’) is not at all applicable to the facts of the present case since the original layout was formed in the year 1960 not subsequent to the Act coming into force. However, the same is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents contending that no material is made available before the Court to substantiate the said contention inasmuch as the original layout said to have been formed in the year 1960. These disputed facts cannot be resolved by this Court exercising the power under the writ jurisdiction.

¶40

Further, it is relevant to note that respondent No.3 has passed the order impugned referring to Section 32(5) of the Act and certain extent of land said to have been released in favour of

¶41

the Corporation in CTS No.5384 in terms of the

¶42

¶43

single layout plan approved. But the said

¶44

communication does not indicate the actual extent of land to which the dispute subsists. The said communication is vague. No application of mind of the Corporation to arrive at a decision is found in the order. Reasons are the harbinger between the mind of the authority and the decision arrived at in adjudicating the controversy. In the absence of any reasons forthcoming in the order impugned, the same cannot be held to be justifiable, more particularly the release deed dated 07.11.2007 said to have been executed by the petitioner itself being in dispute.

¶45

Under the circumstances, the order of the

¶46

learned Single Judge passed mainly relying on release deed dated 07.11.2007 requires to be set aside. We deem it appropriate to restore the proceedings to the file of respondent No.3 to reconsider the matter in the light of the aforesaid observations. All

¶47

¶48

the rights and contentions of the parties are left open. Ordered accordingly.

¶49

Respondent No.3 shall pass a speaking order in accordance with law after notifying the appellants in an expedite manner, in any event not later than 3 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶50

Writ appeals stand disposed off accordingly.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

kmv

Smt.M.J.Seetha v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.M.J.Seetha v. the State of Karnataka

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

The Director of Municipal Administration Vs Sri.Girish Ramachandra Hulakund

Basayya S/O Shankrayya Pujari Vs Chanagouda S/O Basagouda Patil

The Chief Engineer Vs Malleshappa S/O. Andanappa Rawadi