Disposed

Sri Vijaya Kumar Shetty v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Aug 2021WP/14890/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition challenging an eviction order. It permitted the petitioner to continue occupying the shop premises until an auction process is conducted and concluded, subject to payment of rents and rental dues, and participation in the auction.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to continue occupation of shop premises until auction; permitted to participate in auction.

Sri Vijaya Kumar Shetty Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.14890/2014 (LB -RES)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR SHETTY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS S/O. NARAYANA SHETTY R/O. YEDAMALE MADAMAKKI VILLAGE AND POST KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 101

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

[BY SRI. MAHESH KIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING)]

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶13

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYAT KUNDAPURA KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 101

¶14

¶15

THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER MADAMAKKI GRAM PANCHAYAT MADAMAKKI VILLAGE AND POST KUNDAPURA TALUK

¶16

UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 101

¶17

… RESPONDENTS

¶18

[BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA FOR R1; (PHYSICAL HEARING)

¶19

SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3

¶20

(PHYSICAL HEARING)]

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 DATED 24.1.2014 IN APPEAL NO.5/2013-14 VIDE ANNEXURE-K AND ETC.

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 24.01.2014 passed by the Appellate Authority in appeal No.5/2013-14, whereby the Appellate Authority directs eviction of the petitioner from the shop premises that he is holding.

¶25

Heard Sri. Mahesh Kiran Shetty, learned

¶26

counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. Prathima

¶27

¶28

Honnapura, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1, Sri. Hareesh Bhandary T., learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and perused the material on record.

¶29

The petitioner, who is in possession of a particular shop coming under respondent No.3 - the Grama Panchayat was directed to vacate the same, against which, the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.2 - the Executive Officer of Taluk Panchayat, who by the order dated 24.01.2014 has directed eviction of the petitioner from the shop premises that he is holding.

¶30

This Court, by an order dated 03.04.2014, directed status quo be maintained by both the parties, which is in operation even as on date and the petitioner is in possession and claims to be paying regular rents to respondent No.3 - Panchayat, which fact is not disputed by respondent No.3.

¶31

¶32

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner be permitted to continue to occupy the said shop premises till auction process is initiated by respondent Nos.2 and 3 to auction the shop premises along with others subject to payment of rent that he is hither to paying. The said submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is not opposed by respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶33

Therefore, the petitioner would be permitted to continue in the said shop premises that he is holding till an auction process is conducted and concluded by respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

¶34

The petitioner is also permitted to participate in the auction process. In the event, the petitioner fails to qualify to secure the shop that he is holding, he shall vacate the same and hand it over to respondent No.3 – Panchayat. The continuance of the petitioner in the

¶35

¶36

premises shall be subject to clearing all the rental dues, if any as on date.

¶37

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

SJK

Sri Vijaya Kumar Shetty v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Vijaya Kumar Shetty v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Kalidasa Kurubara Sangha Vs the Commissioner

Smt. G Bhuvaneshwari Vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Sri. Keshava Vs the Joint Commissioner

Sri. Nanjundaiah Vs the Chief Secretary

H C Raghavendra Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Gunasundarammanni Vs Chief Officer