Remanded

N Radha Krishna v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC6 Sept 2021WP/43682/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed multiple writ petitions challenging orders by Mysore Urban Development Authority and Tahsildar cancelling a layout plan and property khatas. The Court quashed these orders on grounds of violation of natural justice, holding that individual allottees were not given an opportunity to be heard before civil consequences were imposed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed; matter remitted to MUDA with direction to issue notices to Society and allottees before passing fresh orders.

N Radha Krishna Vs the Commissioner — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 06^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.52065/2015 (LB-RES)

¶6

C/W.

¶7

WRIT PETITION No.43682/2015 (LB-RES) WRIT PETITION No.43690/2015 (LB-RES) WRIT PETITION No.44245/2015 (LB-RES)

¶8

IN WRIT PETITION No.52065/2015

¶9

BETWEEN

¶10

DR. RAJDIP BARAI S/O LATE B.B.BARAI, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT NO.21, 7^TH CROSS, MANJUNATHA NAGAR, KALKERE EXTENSION, BENGALURU – 570 016.

¶11

ALSO AT

¶12

FLAT NO.A2, SAI HRIDAY APARTMENT, GOKULAM, ANANTHPUR DISTRICT, PUTTPERTHI, ANDHRA PRADESH – 515 1341.

¶13

... PETITIONER

¶14

(BY SRI M.R.RAJAGOPAL FOR SRI ANIL KUMAR S., ADVOCATES (VIDEO CONFERENCING))

¶15

¶16

AND

¶17

THE COMMISSIONER MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JLB ROAD, MYSURU – 570 005.

¶18

THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JLB ROAD,

¶19

MYSURU – 570 005.

¶20

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU - 570 001.

¶21

THE TAHSILDAR MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU – 570 001.

¶22

THE COMMISSIONER MYSORE CITY CORPORATION, MYSURU - 570 001.

¶23

THE SECRETARY KARNATAKA POLICE NAUKARARA GRUHA NIRMANA SAHAKARA SANGHA (REGD), MYSURU BRANCH, NETAJI NAGAR, MYSURU - 570 001.

¶24

... RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI T.P.VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2 (PHYSICAL HEARING)

¶26

SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA FOR R3 AND R4; SRI MOHAN BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R5;

¶27

SRI MAYANNA B.L., ADVOCATE FOR R6 (PHYSICAL HEARING))

¶28

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS; QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1 MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REVOKING THE APPROVED LAYOUT PLAN IN SO FAR AS SY NO.39/6 OF LALITHADRIPURA, MYSURU TALUK DTD:22.08.2015 UNDER ANNEXURE-K AND ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 DTD:3.9.2015 CANCELLING THE KATHA IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER UNDER ANNEXURE-L AND ETC.,

¶30

IN WRIT PETITION No.43682/2015

¶31

BETWEEN

¶32

N.RADHA KRISHNA S/O LATE R.NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT OPP.B.V.S. BUILDING, NEAR MAHADESHWARA COLLEGE, KOLLEGAL TOWN, KOLLEGAL – 571 440 CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT.

¶33

B.M.NAGARAJU S/O LATE MALLUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS NO.16, KSRT TURGA,3^RD PHASE, JAKI POLICE QUARTERS, MYSURU – 570 011.

¶34

H.HEMANATH KUMAR S/O C.HANUMANTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS SCIENTIST, R/AT NO.455, 5^TH MAIN, 2^ND STAGE, ‘A’ BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 055.

¶35

R.RANGASWAMY S/O LT.CHIKKA RANGAIAH,

¶36

¶37

AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT NO.275, 6^TH CROSS, 1^ST STAGE, GAYATHRIPURMA, NAZARBAD MOHALLA, MYSURU – 570 019.

¶38

RAJESH Y.N., S/O NAGANNA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT NO.232/B, F-5/2, UTTARADHIMATA, 1^ST CROSS, KILLE MOHALLA, MYSURU – 570 004.

¶39

M.NIRMALA KUMAR W/O LATE H.B.JOSEPH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS NO.473, ‘APURVA NILAYA’ 3^RD MAIN, 5^TH CROSS, K.C.H.S. LAYOUT, NAGADEVANA HALLI, KENGERI, BENGALURU – 560 056.

¶40

SMT.M.MADURA PRAKASH W/O LATE MANJUNATH PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT NO.247, SRIKANATA NILAYA, TEACHERS COLONY, 3^RD AVENUE, VENKATAPURA, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU – 560 034.

¶41

... PETITIONERS

¶42

(BY SRI M.R.RAJAGOPAL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI ANIL KUMAR S., ADVOCATE (VIDEO CONFERENCING))

¶43

AND

¶44

THE COMMISSIONER MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JLB ROAD, MYSURU – 570 005.

¶45

¶46

THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JLB ROAD, MYSURU – 570 005.

¶47

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSURU DISTRICT MYSURU – 570 005.

¶48

THE TAHSILDAR MYSURU TALUK MYSURU - 570 005.

¶49

THE COMMISSIONER MYSORE CITY CORPORATION, MYSURU - 570 005.

¶50

THE SECRETARY KARNATAKA POLICE NAUKARARA GRUHA NIRMANA SAHAKARA SANGHA (REGD.) MYSURU BRANCH, NETAJI NAGAR, MYSURU - 570 005.

¶51

... RESPONDENTS

¶52

(BY SRI T.P.VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2 (PHYSICAL HEARING)

¶53

R3- SERVED; R4 - SERVED; SRI H.C.SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE FOR R5; SRI MAYANNA B.L., ADVOCATE FOR R6 (PHYSICAL HEARING))

¶54

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1 REVOKING THE APPROVED LAYOUT PLAN IN SO FAR AS SY.NO.39/6 OF LALITHADRIPURA, MYSURU TALUK DATED 22.8.2015 VIDE ANN-K AND ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 DATED 3.9.2015 CANCELLING THE KATHA IN THE NAME OF THESE PETITIONER VIDE ANN-L, L1, L2, L3, L4, L5 AND L6 RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.,

¶55

IN WRIT PETITION No.43690/2015

¶56

¶57

BETWEEN

¶58

A.C.SUBBAIAH S/O. LATE A.S. CHINNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, EX SERVICEMAN, NO.446, SVP NAGAR, 2^ND STAGE, POLICE LAYOUT, NADANANAHALLI, MYSURU – 570 028.

¶59

M. JAGADEESHA S/O LATE P. MAHADEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, POLICE CONSTABLE, THERAKANAMBI POLICE STATION, NO.291, THERAKANAMBI POLICE QUARTERS, GUNDLUPET TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT – 571 123.

¶60

ANILKUMAR B., S/O.M. BASAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, NO.442, SARDAR VALLABHAIPATEL NAGAR, LAITADRIPURA, MYSURU – 570 028.

¶61

SMT. A.N. GAYATRI W/O. L. KUMARACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NO.422/7, GIRIDARSHINI LAYOUT, OPP. GANAPATHI TEMPLE STREET, HALANAHALLI, MYSURU – 570 028.

¶62

... PETITIONERS

¶63

(BY SRI M.R.RAJAGOPAL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI ANIL KUMAR S., ADVOCATE (VIDEO CONFERENCING))

¶64

AND

¶65

THE COMMISSIONER

¶66

¶67

MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JLB ROAD, MYSURU – 570 005.

¶68

THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JLB ROAD, MYSURU – 570 005.

¶69

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSURU DISTRICT MYSURU – 570 001.

¶70

THE TAHSILDAR MYSURU TALUK MYSURU - 570 001.

¶71

THE COMMISSIONER MYSURU CITY CORPORATION, MYSURU - 570 001.

¶72

THE SECRETARY KARNATAKA POLICE NAUKARARA GRUHA NIRMANA SAHAKARA SANGHA (REGD.) MYSURU BRANCH, NETAJI NAGAR, MYSURU - 570 028.

¶73

... RESPONDENTS

¶74

(BY SRI T.P.VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2 (PHYSICAL HEARING)

¶75

SMT.PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA FOR R3 & R4 (PHYSICAL HEARING); SRI MOHAN BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R5; SRI MAYANNA B.L., ADVOCATE FOR R6 (PHYSICAL HEARING))

¶76

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS; QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1 REVOKING THE APPROVED LAYOUT PLAN IN SO FAR AS SY.NO.39/6 OF LALITHADRIPURA, MYSURU TALUK DATED 22.8.2015 VIDE ANN-G

¶77

¶78

AND ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 DATED 3.9.2015 CANCELLING THE KATHA IN THE NAME OF THESE PETITIOENR UNDER ANNEXURE-H, H1, H2 AND H3 RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.,

¶79

IN WRIT PETITION No.44245/2015

¶80

BETWEEN

¶81

KARNATAKA POLICE EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY 3^RD CROSS, NETAJI NAGAR, HALANA HALLI, T.N. PURA ROAD, MYSURU – 570 028. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI. NANJUNDE GOWDA.

¶82

SRI G.S.MALLIKARJUNAPPA S/O LATE G.SHANTHAVEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT: NO. 2212/2, M.C.C. ‘A’ BLOCK CHURCH ROAD, DAVANAGERE – 577 002.

¶83

SRI RAMEGOWDA S/O LATE DODDAVEERAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT: NO. 04, OM SRI LAYOUT, ‘K’ BLOCK, RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR, MYSURU – 570 022.

¶84

SRI T.N. PRABHAKAR MURTHY S/O LATE NARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, HEAD CONSTABLE, YALANDUR POLICE STATION, CHAMARAJA NAGAR DISTRICT.

¶85

¶86

ALSO AT: NO. 217, AYOBA ROAD, BANNUR TOWN, T.NARASIPUARA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT – 571 101.

¶87

SMT. N.PRAMEELA W/O S.B.VIJAYARAO AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT: NO. 228, 13^TH CROSS, ‘A’ SECTOR, 1^ST PAHSE, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BENGALURU – 560 064.

¶88

SRI G.BASAVARAJU S/O LATE GURU MALLEDEVARU AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/AT: NO. 55, 1^ST CROSS, 3^RD MAIN ROAD, NETHAJI NAGAR, T.NARASIPURA ROAD, MYSURU – 570 026.

¶89

... PETITIONERS

¶90

(BY SRI K.R.KRISHNA MURTHY AND SRI MAYANNA.B.L., ADVOCATES FOR M/S LAWYERS INC., (PHYSICAL HEARING))

¶91

AND

¶92

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶93

MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, J.L.B. ROAD, MYSURU – 570 005.

¶94

THE SUPERINTENDING OF ENGINEER MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY J.L.B. ROAD, MYSURU - 570 005.

¶95

¶96

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY J.L.B. ROAD, MYSURU - 570 005.

¶97

THE TOWN PLANNING MEMBER MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY J.L.B. ROAD, MYSURU – 570 005.

¶98

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU – 571 129.

¶99

THE TAHSILDAR MYSURU TALUK MYSURU – 571 129.

¶100

... RESPONDENTS

¶101

(BY SRI SMT.PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA FOR R1, R6 AND R7 (PHYSICAL HEARING); SRI T.P.VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R5 (PHYSICAL HEARING))

¶102

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF CANCELLATION OF THE PLAN DTD:22.08.2015 ISSUED BY THE R-2 REGARDING CANCELATION OF THE PLAN (ANNEXURE-O) AND ETC.,

¶103

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶104

ORDER

¶105

Petitioners in these cluster of petitions call in question an order dated 22.08.2015 passed by Mysuru Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘MUDA’ for short) and another order dated 03.09.2015, passed by the Tahsildar of

¶106

¶107

MUDA, by which, the plan and the consequent khatas that were granted in favour of the Karnataka Police Naukarara Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Society’ for short), is cancelled.

¶108

Heard Sri M.R.Rajagopal, learned counsel appearing for Sri Anil Kumar S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in writ petition Nos.52065/2015, 43682/2015 and 43690/2015, Sri T.P.Vivekananda, learned counsel appearing for the Mysuru Urban Development Authority, Smt. Prathima Honnapura, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State in all the cases, Sri H.C.Shivaramu, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 in writ petition No.43682/2015, Sri Mohan Bhat, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 in writ petition No.43690/2015, Sri Mayanna B.L., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 in writ petition Nos.52065/2015, 43682/2015 and 43690/2015, Sri K.R.Krishna Murthy and Sri Mayanna B.L., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

¶109

¶110

in writ petition No.44245/2015 and perused the material on record.

¶111

As the issues are common, the petitions are taken up

¶112

together, considered and disposed by this common order.

¶113

For the sake of convenience, the averments in writ petition No.44245/2015 are narrated.

¶114

Writ petition No.44245/2015 is filed by the Society,

¶115

wherein the facts are as follows:

¶116

The Government on 16.10.1997, issued an order granting permission under Section 109 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1996, for purchase of lands measuring 82 acres and 26 guntas in various survey numbers of Nadanahalli village, Mysuru Taluk. The said lands that were permitted to be purchased by the Government were dropped from acquisition proceedings by the MUDA and ‘No objection’ was issued to the Society to purchase lands measuring 52 acres and 2 ½ guntas of Lalithadripura village, Mysuru Taluk. An endorsement dated

¶117

¶118

21.01.1998, was issued by MUDA dropping acquisition

¶119

proceedings. This according to the Society was clear that survey Nos.39/1 to 39/5 and survey No.39/6 was left out from acquisition.

¶120

On 19.06.1998, the Government issued another order granting permission in respect of remaining 49 acres and 37 guntas of land, situated again in several survey numbers of the same Lalithadripura village. Even in the said permission that is granted, survey No.39/6 of Lalithadripura village did not find a place. The petitioner purchased the above lands from the owners of the said lands and got them converted from agricultural to residential purpose on 20.10.1998 and after conversion of the said lands, the Society also purchased and got converted 6 acres and 10 guntas in survey No.109 of Nadanahalli village on 19.04.2000. Thence, in the aforesaid lands, the Society formed a layout and allotted the houses to various members of the Society, who are in possession of the said sites and are petitioners in the connected cases.

¶121

¶122

When things stood thus, it appears that a complainant by name J. Chikkajavarayya registered a complaint before the Government contending that survey No.39/6, which the petitioner - Society has formed the sites and allotted to its members is in respect of the lands, is recorded as ‘Government beelu’, as the records and it could not have been purchased or allotted or dropped from the acquisition by MUDA. Based upon the complaint, all the cause of actions in the writ petitions triggered.

¶123

The complaint resulted in Deputy Commissioner directing the jurisdictional Tahsildar to conduct a survey and submit a report. The Tahsildar of Mysuru appears to have conducted a survey with regard to the entire extent of lands and also in respect of survey No.39/6, which measures 28 guntas of land, a part of the layout that is formed by the Society and submitted a report to the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner in turn, has directed the MUDA to take

¶124

¶125

appropriate action in terms of the survey report and communication issued by the Deputy Commissioner.

¶126

The consequential communication was issued to the Society by MUDA as per the directions of the Deputy Commissioner and a survey report of the Tahsildar. The directions issued to MUDA has resulted in the impugned orders being passed by the MUDA invoking Section 76(o) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short). Section 76(O) of the Act, reads as follows.

¶127

“76(O). Power of Planning Authority to

¶128

suspend or revoke permission etc.— Planning Authority may suspend or revoke any licence, permission or sanction granted by it if,—

¶129

(i) the grantee has evaded or committed breach of any of the restrictions or conditions subject to which such licence, permission or sanction was granted; or

¶130

(ii) the grantee is convicted for contravention of any of the provisions of this Act, or of any rule, bye-law or regulation made thereunder in respect of

¶131

¶132

any matter relating to such licence, permission or sanction, or

¶133

(iii) the grantee has obtained the licence, permission or sanction by mis-representation or fraud:

¶134

Provided that before making any order under this section the Planning Authority shall give the grantee a reasonable opportunity of making representation against the proposed order.”

¶135

Sri T.P. Vivekananda, learned counsel appearing for MUDA would submit that Subsection (iii) of Section 76(o) of the Act would empower MUDA to cancel the license, permission or sanction, if it is obtained by misrepresentation or fraud. Learned counsel would emphasise on the fact that survey No.39/6 was included in the application that was submitted to the MUDA for sanctioning of the plan. It is thus, a false or misrepresentation that is made by the Society that has resulted in the orders that are now passed.

¶136

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in writ petition No.44245/2015, would submit that survey No.39/6

¶137

¶138

does not form part of the layout at all and has filed a rejoinder to the objections filed by the MUDA and would submit that survey No.39/6 is left out and the lands in other survey numbers bearing survey Nos.39/1 to 39/5 were purchased and a layout is formed. He further submits that while submitting the application, it was clearly indicated that survey No.39/6 does not form part of the plan sanction that was sought by the Society. Notwithstanding the afore-narrated facts, the MUDA on the directions issued by the Deputy Commissioner and the report of the Tahsildar, passed the impugned orders cancelling the sanctioned plan that was accorded 12 years ago for formation of the layout and further passes an order of cancellation of khata that stood in favour of the allottees of the sites by the Society.

¶139

The proviso to Section 76(o) of the Act (supra) , clearly indicates that if an order has been passed on any of the circumstances narrated in Section 76 (o) of the Act, a person who is affected, shall be heard in the matter. No notice is issued

¶140

¶141

to the allottees of the sites is an admitted position in the lis at hand.

¶142

Learned counsel appearing for the MUDA has filed objections contending that issuance of notice to the allottees would be an empty formality as it is impossible for the allottees to justify the action of the Society in including survey No.39/6 to be a part of the layout.

¶143

The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the

¶144

MUDA that no notice need be given to the allottees is unacceptable, as individual petitioners in the connected petitions are all persons who are allottees of the sites in the layout that is formed by the Society, sale deeds have been executed by the Society in favour of the said allottees and khata is also transferred in the name of the such allottees. On the strength of the sale deeds that were entered into between the Society and the individual allottees, further proceedings have taken place with the grant of permission by MUDA for construction of the houses in the said sites of the layout.

¶145

¶146

The MUDA by a stroke of pen could not have passed

¶147

the order which in effect annuls the very sale deeds that have been entered into between the parties by contending that the plan sanctioned for the layout and the allotment is vitiated by committing fraud or misrepresentation in the terms of the aforenarrated provision of law. The Section itself makes it clear that the grantee should be heard in the matter. Grantee according to the learned counsel appearing for the MUDA is the Society and the Society has been issued notice and have replied to the same. He would submit that it is enough compliance with the provision of law.

¶148

This is again unacceptable as the allottees as stated hereinabove have their individual rights over the properties as the properties allotted to them have resulted in certain sale deeds. If the petitioners have right, such right could not have taken away by MUDA without issuance of any notice in the lis . Therefore, there is blatant violation of principles of natural justice by MUDA in straight away passing orders cancelling the

¶149

¶150

khata or revoking the sanctioned plan that was granted to the allottees - petitioners 12 years prior to the passage of the impugned orders.

¶151

The submission that if the Society being the grantee is heard, is enough would run counter to the very concept of hearing on an order which would result in civil consequences. Therefore, the orders impugned in the petitions will have to be obliterated on the sole ground that the petitioners, who are individual allottees were not heard.

¶152

In view of mine in this regard is fortified by the judgment of this Court in the case of MARTANDAPPA B. HOSALLI AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (UNIVERSITIES) BANGALORE AND OTHERS¹ , wherein, this Court has clearly held that the affected party ought to be notified even if the action of the University is being annulled, as certain rights had been accrued to those persons of the University, by

¶153

1 ILR 2003 Kar 896

¶154

¶155

the University passing certain orders. If the law that is declared in those cases are paraphrased in the case at hand, it becomes unmistakably clear that the petitioners have a right to hear them and in the case at hand, as the petitioners are not been heard, the proceedings stands vitiated.

¶156

Insofar as the writ petition filed by the society is concerned, the survey that was directed to be conducted, was conducted by the Tahsildar, without serving any notice to the Society or even to the allottees of the Society. A report of a survey that is prepared by the Tahsildar, without issuing notice to the affected party namely, the Society would again be in blatant violation of principles of natural justice. If nothing had come about on the survey that was made, it would be a different circumstance. The entire issue in these lis springs out by the survey conducted by the Tahsildar. Therefore, such action which has a drastic effect of civil consequences on the allottees - petitioners could not have resorted by the Tahsildar without issuing any notice to the petitioner - Society as well.

¶157

¶158

All these proceedings spring from a complaint

¶159

registered by a stranger to these proceedings, who can at the best be called as a busybody or meddlesome interloper. The authorities ought to have taken action when such complaints are registered, results in such litigations being generated. The MUDA while sanctioning the plan to the Society for formation or construction as the case would be, has clearly perused the entire records and then approved the layout plan. If the land in survey number 39/6 did not find a place when MUDA scrutinized the papers, it will find a place in the plan also. Therefore, it is necessary for the MUDA to conduct a survey of the entire extent of the lands in the subject controversy, in the presence of the Society and the allottees and then arrive at a conclusion with regard to the allegations or the survey conducted by the Tahsildar, by passing appropriate order in accordance with law.

¶160

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶161

ORDER

¶162

i. The writ petitions are allowed.

¶163

¶164

ii. The impugned orders dated 22.08.2015 and 03.09.2015

¶165

stand quashed.

¶166

iii. The matter is remitted back to the MUDA. It is directed

¶167

to issue notices to the petitioners – Society and individual allottees, to whom allotments were made. Allottees and Society shall submit their replies to such notices. The MUDA after considering the replies, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order and the documents that are appended to the writ petitions.

¶168

iv. The contentions of the petitioners in these petitions are all kept open to be urged by way of objections as and when needed by the MUDA.

¶169

Sd/JUDGE

¶170

nvj CT:MJ

N Radha Krishna v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N Radha Krishna v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Singrigowda Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Shrikantegowda. D. L. Vs the President

Hemalatha Vs Aro Bbmp

Arshis Restauranteurs Vs Joint Commissioner (East)

Ramesh D K Vs State of Karnataka

Sri G Ravi Vs State of Karnataka