Sri. Sanjay Balappa Soundalagi v. the Regional Commissioner

Karnataka HC10 Nov 2021WP/104248/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court of Karnataka issued a mandamus directing the 5th respondent, Tahasildar, to remove encroachment on a public road. The order was based on failing action taken by lower authorities despite representations and a direction from the 1st respondent.

What did the court decide?

Mandamus issued to respondents, particularly the 5th respondent, to consider representations and remove encroachment within 60 days.

Sri. Sanjay Balappa Soundalagi Vs the… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.104248/2021 (LB-UC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. SANJAY BALAPPA SOUNDALAGI, AGE 73 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHINCHALI, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SHRIHARSH A. NEELPANT, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI DIVISION, BELAGAVI-590001, DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI DISTRICT, BELAGAVI – 590001, DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHIKODI SUB-DIVISION, CHIKODI – 591201, TQ. CHIKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, RAIBAG – 591317, DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶16

THE TAHASILDAR, RAIBAG TALUKA,

: 2 :

..RESPONDENTS

RAIBAG – 591317,

TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶21

(SRI. V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1 TO R5)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE 5^TH RESPONDENT TO TAKE ACTION FOR REMOVAL OF ENCROACHMENT ON THE PUBLIC ROAD WHICH WAS IN EXISTENCE IN SY.NO.138, 120, 109, 108, 107, 81 AND 82 SITUATED AS CHINCHALI VILLAGE RAIBAG TALUK, BELAGAVI BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 05.02.2021 AND 02.09.2021 AS PER ANNEXURE-D AND N, RESPECTIVELY. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

1. learned HCGP accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 to

¶25

He seeks for a short accommodation. However, considering the nature of the order proposed to be passed, his request is rejected.

¶26

The petitioner is before this Court, seeking for the following reliefs:

¶27

(i) To issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the 5^th respondent to take action for removal of encroachment on the public road which was in existence in Sy.No.138, 120, 109, 108, 107, 81 and 82 situated as Chinchali village, Raibag tluk, Belagavi by considering the representation of the petitioner dated

¶28

: 3 :

¶29

05.02.2021 and 02.09.2021 as per AnnexureD and N, repectively.

¶30

(ii) Grant such other reliefs as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court in the circumstances of the case.

¶31

The petitioner contends that, the petitioner is the absolute owner in possession of the land in Sy.No.109/1 situated at Chinchali village, Raibag taluk, Belagavi. Adjacent to the land of the petitioner, there is a road which is in existence. The petitioner’s contention is that, various persons have encroached upon the said Government road and as such, it has become difficult for the petitioner to ingress and egress his property, the said encroachment is also causing inconvenience to the general public. The petitioner is stated to have submitted various representations on 10.02.2021, 16.02.2021, 09.08.2021 and 12.08.2021 at Annexure-E, F, G, H & J, respectively. On the basis of the said representation, the first respondent the Regional Commissioner had directed the 5^th respondent –

¶32

: 4 :

¶33

Tahashildar to remove the encroachment if any, despite which no action has been taken. For this reason, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

¶34

The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is borne out by the records. In view thereof, a mandamus is issued directing the respondents more particularly respondent No.5 to consider the representation at Annexure-E, F, G, H & J as also the direction issued by the 1^st respondent within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

*Svh/-

Sri. Sanjay Balappa Soundalagi v. the Regional Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Sanjay Balappa Soundalagi v. the Regional 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

Sankamthai Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Vs the State of Karnataka

Concan Specialised Engineering Services Vs Military Engineer Services

Shri.Veeranna S/O Basappa Sappadla Vs the State of Karnataka

Devakka W/O Basappa Makannavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Kamalavva W/O Dundapppa Hanji Vs Shri. Mahadev S/O Kallappa Paddi

Mr. Basavaraj Murgeppa Khadabadi Vs the Commissioner