Disposed

Ravi S/O Dheerendrarao Deshpande v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC15 Jun 2021WP/148511/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of three writ petitions challenging show-cause notices issued by the Archaeological Department directing the petitioner to stop construction of a petrol outlet. After noting conflicting distance reports, the Court stayed further construction and directed the authority to reconsider after a detailed reply.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to file detailed reply with documents; Respondent No.1 to reconsider and pass order within four weeks; further construction stayed.

Ravi S/O Dheerendrarao Deshpande Vs the Deputy… — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^th DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.100189/2021 c/w WRIT PETITION Nos.148488/2020 & 148511/2020 (LB-RES)

¶7

IN WP No.100189/2021 BETWEEN :

¶8

SHRI. RAVI S/O DHEERENDRARAO DESHPANDE AGE 43 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O NEAR TARAKESHWAR TEMPLE, GUDIKERI ONI, HANGAL-581104, TQ HANGAL, DIST HAVERI. .. PETITIONER (BY SRI.SRIHARSH A. NEELOPANT, ADV.)

¶9

AND :

¶10

1 . THE UNION OF INDIAN TO THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA, THE SUPERINTENDING ARCHAELOGIST, DHARWAD CIRCLE, NEAR R.N. SHETTY STADIUM, BEHIND SAHITYA BHAVAN, DHARWAD-580008. 2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HAVERI DISTRICT, HAVERI-581110. 3 . THE TAHASILDAR HANGAL TALUKA, HANGAL-581104, DIST HAVERI. 4 . THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL HANGAL, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER, HANGAL-581104, DIST HAVERI.

¶11

¶12

5 . THE MONUMENT ATTENDANT, ANCIENT SURVEY, SHRI.BILLESHWAR TEMPLE, HANGAL-581104, TQ HANGAL, DIST HAVERI.

¶13

6 . THE CONSERVATION ASSISTANT ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA, HAVERI-581110, DIST HAVERI.

¶14

.. RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH,AGA FOR R2 AND R3. SRI M.B. KANAVI, ADV FOR R1, R5 AND R6. R4 SERVED.)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE BEARING NO.T19/59/DEC/0/5572785/SUP/23 DATED 24.12.2020/04.01/2021 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 THEREBY DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO STOP THE CONSTRUCTIONAL ACTIVITY WITHIN 15 DAYS OVER THE PETITION PROPERTY AS PER ANNEXURE-A.

¶17

IN WP No.148488/2020 BETWEEN :

¶18

RAVI S/O DHEERENDRARAO DESHPANDE AGE: 43 YEARS; OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. NEAR TARAKESHWAR TEMPLE, GUDIKERI ONI, HANGAL 581104, TQ. HANGAL, DIST. HAVERI (BY SRI. SRIHARSH A. NEELOPANT, ADV.)

¶19

.. PETITIONER

¶20

AND :

¶21

1 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HAVERI DISTRICT, HAVERI 581110 2 . THE TAHASILDAR HANGAL TALUKA, HANGAL 581104, DIST. HAVERI 3 . THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, HANGAL

¶22

¶23

REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER, HANGAL 581104, DIST. HAVERI

¶24

4 . THE MOUNMENT ATTENDENT ANCIENT SURVEY, SHRI. BILLESHWAR TEMPLE, HANGAL 581104, DIST. HAVERI

¶25

5 . THE CONSERVATION ASSISTANT ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA, HAVERI 581110, DIST. HAVERI

¶26

.. RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH,AGA FOR R1 AND R2. SRI M.B. KANAVI, CGSC FOR R4 AND R5. R3 SERVED.)

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 02/03.11.2020 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 THEREBY DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO STOP THE CONSTRUCTION WORK OVER THE PETITION PROPERTY WITHIN 24 HOURS AND DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO OBTAIN NO OBJECTION FROM THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER BENGALURU AS PER ANNEXURE.A.

¶29

IN WP No.148511/2020 BETWEEN :

¶30

RAVI S/O DHEERENDRARAO DESHPANDE AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. NEAR TARAKESHWAR TEMPLE, GUDIKERI ONI, HANGAL 581104, TQ. HANGAL, DIST. HAVERI (BY SRI. SHRIHARSH A. NEELOPANT, ADV.)

¶31

.. PETITIONER

¶32

AND :

¶33

1 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HAVERI DISTRICT, HAVERI 581110

¶34

2 . THE TAHASILDAR HANGAL TALUKA, HANGAL 581104, DIST. HAVERI

¶35

¶36

3 . THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, HANGAL REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER, HANGAL 581104, DIST. HAVERI

¶37

4 . THE MONUMENT ATTENDANT, ANCIENT SURVEY SHRI BILLESHWAR TEMPLE, HANGAL 581104, TQ. HANGAL, DIST. HAVERI

¶38

5 . THE CONSERVATION ASSISTANT ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA HAVERI-581110 DIST. HAVERI

¶39

.. RESPONDENTS

¶40

(BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH,AGA FOR R1 AND R2. SRI M.B. KANAVI, CGSC FOR R4 AND R5. R3 SERVED.)

¶41

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE BEARING NO.HVR/AMASR/HNL/2020-21/2911 DATED 02.11.2020 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.5 THEREBY DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO STOP THE CONSTRUCTION WORK OVER THE PETITION PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY AND DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO OBTAIN NO OBJECTION FROM THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER BENGALURU AS PER ANNEXURE-A

¶42

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the notice vide Annexure-A in the respective petitions.

¶45

¶46

The case of the petitioner is that Nayara Energy Limited formerly known as ESSAR Oil Limited has issued a notification calling application for establishment of petroleum products outlet. In response to the notification, the petitioner has applied and he has been allotted the petroleum product outlet in Sy.No.172 of Halekote Hangal, Haveri District. Before commencing construction of the petroleum outlet, the petitioner had to obtain No Objection Certificate(NOC) from the competent authority. Accordingly, the petitioner has obtained NOC from the Police Department and also from the local and Revenue Authority. Since all these Authorities have given no objection, permission has been given to the petitioner to construct the petroleum outlet in the said property. When things stood thus, Archaeology Authority has issued the impugned notices vide Annexure ‘A’ directing the petitioner to stop the unauthroised construction and directed him to obtain necessary permission under Rule 38 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rule 1959 and to stop the construction. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶47

¶48

Sri. Sriharsh A. Neelopant, learned counsel

¶49

appearing for the petitioner submitted that the property in dispute where the petitioner is establishing petroleum product outlet is not within the regulated area as mentioned under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains act, 1958 as amended by the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short). Before commencing the construction, the petitioner has obtained necessary No Objection Certificate from the Revenue Authority, local authority and also the Police Department. No objection given by the Tahsildar vide Annexure-E categorically state that the notified Beeralingeshwara temple is situated 350 meters away from the disputed site. Since the petitioner has not violated any provisions of law, the notice issued by the Archaeology Department is unsustainable and without any authority of law. Hence, he sought for allowing the writ petition.

¶50

Per Contra, Sri. M.B.Kanavi, learned counsel

¶51

appearing for respondent Nos.1, 5 and 6 submitted that the Beeralingeshwar temple is a notified temple under the said

¶52

¶53

Act. As per the provisions of the Act, any construction within 300 meter is prohibited. Since the petitioner is constructing petroleum product outlet within the regulated area without obtaining NOC from the Authority, the Authority has initiated action under the said Act.

¶54

Sri. Shivaprabhu S. Hiremath, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that even though the Tahsildar has given a report stating that the notified Beeralingeshwara temple is 350 meters away from the disputed site, pursuant to the directions of this Court dated 11.02.2021, the Assistant Commissioner has conducted a survey and submitted a report to this Court and as per the report, the property in dispute is 180 meters away from the Beeralingeshwara Temple and within the regulated area.

¶55

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Perused the writ papers.

¶56

It is not in dispute that Nayara Energy Limited formerly known as ESSAR Oil Limited has permitted the petitioner to establish the petroleum outlet in Sy.No.172 of Halekote Hangal, Haveri District. Before commencing the

¶57

¶58

construction, the petitioner has obtained NOC from the local Authority and from the Police and the Revenue Authorities. Now that the Archaeological Department has issued the impugned notices sating that the property in which the petitioner is constructing petroleum products outlet without obtaining NOC from Archaeological Department and the said outlet comes within the regulated area and the same is prohibited under the Act and to stop the construction. The petitioner disputes the same stating that the said property is not within the regulated area and that he has obtained NOC from the competent Authorities.

¶59

As per the direction of this Court, now that the Assistant Commissioner has filed a report stating that the disputed site is within the regulated area.

¶60

Be that as it may. Now that the 1^st respondent has issued a notice directing the petitioner to stop unauthroised construction in the regulated area, the petitioner is permitted file a detailed reply to the notice along with necessary documents. The 1^st respondent is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy

¶61

¶62

of this order and to immediately communicate the decision/order to the petitioner. Till then, the petitioner is directed to stop any further construction on the disputed site. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

¶63

With the aforesaid observations, the petitions stand disposed of.

¶64

Sd/JUDGE

¶65

kmv

Ravi S/O Dheerendrarao Deshpande v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi S/O Dheerendrarao Deshpande v. the Deputy 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

Mallappaganiger Vs the State of Karnataka

Subbana Gouda S/O Kumara Gouda Vs Kottagi Siddalingappa S/O Malappa

The Asst. Executive Engineer, Vs the State of Karnataka

Erappa S/O Durgappa Bilagi Vs the State of Karnataka

Yuvak Mandala Lukkeri Vs the Government of Karnataka

Ravi S/O Dheerendrarao Deshpande Vs the Deputy Commissioner