Disposed

Shri.Praful S/O Basavaraj Waded v. the Chief Officer

Karnataka HC24 Jun 2021WP/116693/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenging a provisional order to vacate premises was disposed of by ordering the petitioner to submit a reply within two weeks and the respondent to pass confirmation orders, preventing dispossession pending the reply.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit reply to Annexure-G within two weeks; 1st respondent directed to consider reply and pass appropriate orders; respondents restrained from dispossessing petitioner.

Shri.Praful S/O Basavaraj Waded Vs the Chief Officer — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.116693/2019(LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

SHRI PRAFUL S/O BASAVARAJ WADED AGE : 23 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O SOMWAR PETH, CHIKODI, TQ: CHIKODI-591201. DIST BELAGAVI (BY SRI SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLI, ADV.)

¶9

.. PETITIONER

¶10

AND :

¶11

THE CHIEF OFFICER, CHIKODI TOWN MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, CHIKODI, TQ: CHIKODI-591201, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHIKODI, TQ: CHIKODI-591201, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶12

.. RESPONDENTS

¶13

(BY SRI SHIVARAJ P.MUDHOL, ADV. FOR R.1.) (BY SRI SHIVAPRABHU S.HIREMATH, AGA FOR R.2)

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING THIS COURT TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 07.12.2019 ISSUED BY 1^ST RESPONDENT BEARING NO.SAMPU.SA.CHI.LOEE:2019-20 VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND SUCH OTHER RELIFS.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN “B” GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 07.12.2019 passed by the 1^st respondent vide Annexure-G directing the petitioner to vacate the premises.

¶19

The case of the petitioner is that, he is the owner of the property bearing CTS No.2433 and TMC No.392/266 situate at Somwar Peth, main road, Chikodi taluk, Belagavi district measuring 148 sq.mts. He has purchased the same by its erstwhile owner vide registered sale deed on 27.04.2016 and he has constructed a residential house. The 1^st respondent, without giving any notice to the petitioner, has passed the impugned order vide Annexure-G directing him to vacate the premises. Being aggrieved by the same, he has filed this writ petition.

¶20

Sri. Shivaraj S. Balloli, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order is passed without following the procedure provided under Section 187 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964

¶21

¶22

(hereinafter referred to the ‘Act’, for short). Hence, he sought for allowing the writ petition.

¶23

Per contra, Sri. Shivaraj P. Mudhol, learned counsel appearing for the Municipality contended that Annexure-G is a provisional order passed by the 1^st respondent under Section 187 of the Act. If the petitioner gives a reply, the 1^st respondent, after considering the same, will pass confirmation order in accordance with law.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶25

Perused the writ papers.

¶26

The 1^st respondent has issued show cause notice to the petitioner under Section 187 of the Act. Pursuant to the show cause notice, the petitioner has given a reply. After considering the same, the 1^st respondent has passed a provisional order as per Annexure-G dated 07.12.2019 as per Section 187 of the Act and the petitioner has to submit his reply to Annexure-G. After considering the same, the 1^st respondent has to pass confirmation order in accordance with law.

¶27

¶28

In view of the above, considering Annexure-G as a provisional order passed under Section 187 of the Act, the petitioner is directed to submit his reply to Annexure-G within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the 1^st respondent is directed to consider the reply submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as per Section 187 of the Act. Till then, the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioner.

¶29

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶30

SD/JUDGE

¶31

kmv

Shri.Praful S/O Basavaraj Waded v. the Chief Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri.Praful S/O Basavaraj Waded v. the Chief Officer

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

Chandrashekhar S/O Murigeppa Teli Vs the Deputy Commissioner (Food)

Ananda S/O Chandrashekhara Shivapooji Vs Raju Raghuram Shetty

M/S. Barafawala Foods Vs the State of Karnataka

Mangal Suresh Koujalgi Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Arvind Traders Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

Meenugarara Mehalaraia Shakhari Sangha Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka