Disposed

Sri O Rajanna v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Jan 2021WP/4837/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Writ Petition was disposed of after the Court doubted its public interest litigation status due to pending title disputes. The Court reserved liberty for the third respondent to challenge the demolition order issued by the Municipality under Section 187 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed; liberty reserved to the third respondent to pursue remedy against the demolition order.

Sri O Rajanna Vs the State of Karnataka — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G. UMA

¶8

WRIT PETITION No.4837 OF 2020 (LB-RES/PIL)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI.O.RAJANNA SON OF OBAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESIDING AT RAMDAS COMPOUND GOPALAPURA ROAD, PIN-577 502. CHITRADURGA TALUK & DISTRICT CHITRADURGA, KARNATAKA.

¶11

... PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI: RAMA BHAT K., ADVOCATE(PH))

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶15

REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY

¶16

TO GOVERNMENT

¶17

TOWN PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKAS SOUDHA, DR.AMBEDKAR BEEDHI

¶18

BENGALURU-560 001.

¶19

THE COMMISSIONER

¶20

CHITRADURGA TOWN MUNICIPALITY CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 501.

¶21

SRI.D.YASHODHARA

¶22

SON OF DODDA THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶23

¶24

PRESIDENT, DISTRICT JANATA DAL (SECULAR) SANTHEPETE, CHITRADURGA-577 501.

¶25

... RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SMT:VANI H., ADDL. GOVERNMENT ADV FOR R1(PH); SRI:S.MAHESH ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI:UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI:B.M.SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R3(VC))

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION AGAINST RESPONDENT NO.3 FOR ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION OF TEMPORARY COMMERCIAL SHEDS IN THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND THEREBY PROTECT THE VALUABLE LAND BELONGING TO RESPONDENT NO.2 MUNICIPALITY BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10.12.2019 MADE BY THE PETITIONER AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:-

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

The petitioner has averred in the memorandum of

¶31

writ petition that, the same has been filed in public interest. The petitioner has sought for a direction to the first and second respondents to take appropriate action against the third respondent for illegal construction of temporary commercial sheds in the schedule property and thereby to protect the valuable land belonging to the second respondent-Municipality by considering the

¶32

¶33

representation dated 10/12/2019 (Annexure-A). The schedule property is described as under:

¶34

“SCHEDULE PROPERTY

¶35

All that piece and parcel of commercial land bearing Municipal Khatha No.4209/3805/7109/6137, comprised in Survey No.47/3, measuring 0 acres 19 guntas (i.e., 115.5 X 186 Ft. (21483 Sq. Ft.), Ward No.12, near Neelakanteswara Temple, Opp. Janata Bazar, situated at Madehalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Chitradurga Taluk, now within the limits of Chitradurga Town Municipality, and bounced on:

¶36

East by : Road West by : Christian Burial Ground North by : Private property South by : Private property”

¶37

We have heard Sri.K.Rama Bhat, learned

¶38

Counsel for the petitioner, Smt.H.Vani, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Sri.Udaya Holla, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for

¶39

¶40

Sri.B.M.Siddappa, for respondent No.3. Perused the material on record.

¶41

Learned Counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to order dated 30.09.2020 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. He contended that the schedule property belongs to the second respondentMunicipality and in that property, the third respondent has put up illegal construction.

¶42

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the third respondent has countered the said submission and contended that the schedule property belongs to the third respondent and the petitioner cannot seek a direction to the second respondent to take action with regard to construction put up by the third respondent on his property.

¶43

Learned Counsel for the petitioner also drew my attention to order dated 30.09.2020 to submit that show cause notice was issued to the third respondent

¶44

¶45

under Section 187 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for the sake of brevity) and provisional order was also made and subsequently, final order has been made under the said provisions on 15.10.2020 directing demolition of the construction put up by the third respondent.

¶46

Learned Additional Government Advocate in continuation of the said submission brought to our notice that revision petition had been filed before the Regional Commissioner of Bengaluru Division and subsequently, it was withdrawn.

¶47

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the third respondent submitted that the said revision petition was withdrawn on account of pendancy of this public interest litigation. Whereas, this petition cannot be construed to be a public interest litigation at all. But, since action has been taken in respect of construction put up by the third respondent on the schedule property, liberty may be reserved to the third respondent to pursue his remedy

¶48

¶49

against the order dated 15.10.2020 in accordance with law.

¶50

Having been heard the learned Counsel and

¶51

the learned Senior Counsel for the respective parties, at the outset, we express our doubt as to whether this could be a public interest litigation at all, as during the course of submissions, it was also brought to our notice that there is a title dispute with regard to the schedule property. We also note that OS No.47 of 2020 is pending between

¶52

Chitradurga District Congress Committee and Others

¶53

Vs District Janata Dal (Secular) regarding the title of the schedule property.

¶54

Be that as it may. Since action has been initiated by the second respondent authority under Section 187 of the Act and being aggrieved by the order dated 15.10.2020, the third respondent has remedy under the provisions of the said Act, liberty is reserved to the third respondent to take recourse of the remedy available under law.

¶55

¶56

With the aforesaid observations and reserving liberty to the third respondent, the writ petition is disposed.

¶57

In view of the disposal of the writ petition, all

¶58

pending applications stand disposed.

¶59

Sd/JUDGE

¶60

Sd/JUDGE

¶61

*bgn/-

Sri O Rajanna v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri O Rajanna 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri B D Mukunda Vs the State of Karnataka

State of Karnataka Vs Sri Nagaraj

Smt Anasuya Vs State of Karnataka

Priya Krishna Vs the Returning Officer

Mfar Developers Private Limited Vs the Union of India

Mfar Developers Private Limited Vs the Union of India