Quashed

Bharath Jagannathan v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Dec 2021WP/12953/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a show-cause notice issued by the Town and Country Planning Authority stalling site release. Court quashed the notice, directed the Authority to consider petitioner's replies, and restricted consideration of irrelevant stakeholder objections.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the show-cause notice, directed the authority to consider petitioner's reply within eight weeks and relevant stakeholder objections before passing appropriate orders.

Bharath Jagannathan Vs State of Karnataka — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.12953/2020 (LB - RES)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

BHARATH JAGANATHAN S/O. LATE M. JAGANATHAN AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS VHF SELVEE FARM DEVELOPMENT H-35, AVALAPALLI HUDCO BAGALURU ROAD, HOSUR TOWN TAMIL NADU-635109 ... PETITIONER

¶9

[BY SRI. H.P. LEELADHAR, ADV. (PHYSICAL HEARING)]

¶10

AND

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT AMBEDKAR ROAD VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGLAURU-560 001

¶12

MEMBER SECRETARY SATELLITE TOWN RING ROAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (STRR) BENGLAURU METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (BMRDA) (THEN) NO.1, ALIASKAR ROAD BENGALURU-560052

¶13

¶14

PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BIDARAGUPPE GRAMA PANCHAYATH BIDARAGUPPE VILLAGE ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562 107 ... RESPONDENTS

¶15

[BY SRI. K.R. NITYANANDA, AGA FOR R1 (PHYSICAL HEARING); SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK, ADV. FOR R2. (PHYSICAL HEARING); SRI. R. NAGENDRA NAIK, ADV. FOR R3 (VIDEO CONFERENCING)]

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE R-2 DATED 26.06.2020 UNDER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Heard Sri. H.P. Leeladhar, learned counsel for the

¶20

petitioner, learned AGA Sri. K.R. Nityananda for respondent No.1, learned counsel Sri.Yogesh D. Naik for respondent No.2, learned counsel Sri. R.Nagendra Naik, for respondent No.3.

¶21

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question a notice dated 26.06.2020 by which

¶22

¶23

respondent No.2 - Satellite Town, Ring Road

¶24

Development Authority has temporarily stalled the release of 40% of the sites in the layout formed by the petitioner. A notice was issued to the petitioner seeking information about the dispute with regard to the formation of the layout after releasing 60% of the sites in the layout.

¶25

The notices were issued on 06.03.2020 and 20.03.2020. The petitioner has filed his objections to the said notices on 06.05.2020 and would submit that he has again submitted his reply on 26.05.2020. The allegation of the petitioner is that the impugned order is passed without considering any of the contentions put forth in the objections. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is passed on the basis of a complaint registered by one Sri. D.Narsimhamurthy.

¶26

¶27

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 - Authority would submit that the impugned order is an order temporarily suspending the release of sites invoking power under Section 76-O of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 and would submit that in the event the petitioner would produce all the documents in justification of his claim for release of the reminder of 40% of the sites, the same would be considered in accordance with law and appropriate orders would be passed.

¶28

Therefore, in the peculiar facts of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose the writ petition, by the following:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

¶31

notice with a direction to the petitioner to submit his reply/objections.

¶32

(iii) The respondent shall consider the

¶33

objections filed by the petitioner on the aforesaid dates or any other document that the petitioner would place in justification of his claim for the release of reminder of 40% of sites.

¶34

(iv) While so considering, the Authority shall take note of the objections, if any, filed by any of the stakeholders only if they are relevant to the issue.

¶35

(v) The petitioner shall submit his reply to the order that is now read down as show cause notice within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the 2^nd respondent - Authority shall consider the same within eight weeks thereafter and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law.

¶36

¶37

In view of the disposal of the main petition, I.A. Nos.1/2020 and 2/2020 also stand disposed.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

Bharath Jagannathan v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharath Jagannathan v. 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

Shivaprasad Navada Vs Leonard Fernandes

Sri. Arun Kumar L Vs the State by Station House Officer

Smt.Lingamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Narayanamma Vs State of Karnataka

Gowramma Vs Adhyaksha

Sri Vigneshwaran N Vs the Commissioner