The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging re-allotment of stray sites. Relying on a previous judgment that struck down the relevant regulatory clause as violative of Article 14, the Court held that the allotments became illegal and consequently disposed off the petition.
The writ petition was disposed off.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020 BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO.15698 OF 2013 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
2
R/o. No.1032, 1st Cross, 5th Main Road, Chamundipuram, Mysore-570 008.
…PETITIONERS
(By Sri. R.S.Hegde, Advocate – Physically present in the Court) AND:
3
Aged: Major, R/o.No.2658, 2nd Cross, R.P.Road, Nanjangudu, Mysore-570 016.
...RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. R.Srinivasagowda, AGA for R-1 (Physically present in the Court);
Sri. S.N.Ashwatha Narayan, Advocate for R-2 (through video conferencing);
Sri. S.Anilkumar, Advocate for R-3, R-5 and R-6 (through video conferencing);
Sri. Mahantesh S. Hosmath, Advocate for R-4 (through video conferencing) )
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the impugned order No.VaE.331.KHB.2012 dated 04.02.2013 issued by 1st respondent vide Annexure-H as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law, etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ group this day (through physical hearing / video conferencing hearing), the Court made the following:
4
ORDER
The petitioners in these writ petitions have called in question the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in allotment of stray sites in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 6.
parties and perused the records.
In the same breadth, the State Government also communicated the same sites to be allotted in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 6. The petitioners on coming to know sought those documents-internal communications under
5
the Right to Information Act, 2005 and have preferred this writ petition challenging the re-allotment made in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 6 in the light of the allotment already made in favour of the petitioners.
6
7
consideration in the writ petition and is accordingly
disposed off.
Sd/-
sac*
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the allotment of stray sites made under a clause struck down by this Court as violative of Article 14 can be sustained in a writ petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
BHOJAPPA K. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHERFollowed¶39
2020(1) Kar. L.J. 427
4 provisions across 2 enactments
H. Ravi and others
State of Karnataka
Housing Commissioner
Manimala and others
M. Nagaprasanna
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
