Dismissed

Smt. Hemalatha M v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC4 Mar 2022WA/1228/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an intra-court appeal filed by a respondent challenging the rejection of their application to vacate an interim order suppressing a trade license issued during a property dispute involving abeyance of khatha and plans.

What did the court decide?

Confirmed the interim order staying the trade license; directed the Single Judge to expedite the main writ petition hearing.

Smt. Hemalatha M Vs the Commissioner — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶8

W.A.No.1228/2021

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. HEMALATHA. M. D/O LATE S MUDDAVEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.456, 10TH MAIN, 3RD STAGE, 4TH BLOCK, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BANGALORE-560079. REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER/HUSBAND SRI MOHAN. D.

¶11

… APPELLANT

¶12

(By Sri M.Shivaprakash, Adv.)

¶13

AND:

¶14

1 . THE COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N R SQUARE, BANGALORE-560002.

¶15

2 . THE MEDICAL OFFICER HEALTH BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR ZONE, BANGALORE-560098.

¶16

¶17

3 . SRI SRINIVAS S. GOWDA S/O LATE SANJEEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.15, 1ST CROSS, GAYATHRI HBCS LAYOUT BASAVESHWARANAGARA BANGALORE-560079.

¶18

… RESPONDENTS

¶19

(By Sri Rajeswara.P.N., Adv. for C/R3)

¶20

This writ appeal is filed under section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, praying to dissolve / vacate the interim orders passed on IA No.1/2021 in W.P. No.13134/2021 dated 15.09.2021, consequently to reject the interim prayer in the writ petition NO.13134/2021, Etc.

¶21

This appeal coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, Vishwajith Shetty J., delivered the following:

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

This intra court appeal is filed by respondent no.3 challenging the order dated 15.09.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on IA-1/2021 in W.P.No.13134/2021.

¶24

The parties are referred to by the rank assigned to them in the writ petition.

¶25

¶26

The petitioner had filed W.P.No.13134/2021 with a prayer to quash the trade license certificate dated 13.01.2021 (Annexure-A1) with respect to Trade License No.RR05129746152889705 issued by respondent no.2 in favour of respondent no.3 and also had sought for a prayer to quash the renewed trade license issued to respondent no.3.

¶27

The learned Single Judge of this Court, at the stage of preliminary hearing, on 22.07.2021, had granted an interim order staying the operation and execution of the trade license certificates issued by respondent no.2 as per Annexures-A1 & A2, until further orders. Though respondent no.3 had entered caveat, there was no representation on her behalf while the said order was passed by the learned Single Judge. Subsequently, IA-1/2021 was filed by respondent no.3 with a prayer to vacate the said interim order dated 22.07.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge after hearing both the parties, vide the order impugned herein, has rejected IA-1/2021 filed by respondent no.3 seeking vacation of the interim order. Being aggrieved by the same, respondent no.3 has preferred this appeal.

¶28

¶29

Learned Counsel for the appellant/respondent no.3 submits that the learned Single Judge was not justified in rejecting the application seeking vacation of the interim order. He submits that the trade license was issued much earlier to the order of status quo passed in M.F.A.No.1833/2019 on 05.07.2021. He submits that the petitioner has not placed correct and true facts before the learned Single Judge, and therefore, an erroneous order has been passed by the learned Single Judge. He submits that if the interim order is not vacated, respondent no.3 who has made huge investments for the purpose of business will be put to hardship.

¶30

Per contra, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the khatha and building sanction plan of the petitioner as well as the respondent no.3 has been kept in abeyance pursuant to the order dated 21.12.2019 passed by the Joint Commissioner, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), Rajarajeshwarinagar Zone, and though respondent no.3 has filed a writ petition challenging the said order, there is no interim order in the said writ petition. He submits that this

¶31

¶32

Court in M.F.A.No.1833/2019 has passed an order directing both the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the property in dispute. He submits that the learned Single Judge having appreciated these aspects of the matter, has rightly dismissed IA-1/2021 and has posted the matter for hearing.

¶33

The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing IA-1/2021 filed by respondent no.3 seeking vacation of the interim order dated 22.07.2021?

¶34

Respondent no.3 has been granted trade license vide Annexures-A1 & A2 to carry out business in the name and stile M/s. Imagineering & Other Associated Business Ventures at Property No.752/C, Nagarabhavi Main Road, Vinayaka HBCS Layout, Bengaluru. The Joint Commissioner, BBMP, Rajarajeshwarinagar Zone, in proceedings which arose on the complaint of respondent no.3, has passed an order vide Annexure-U on 21.12.2019 directing the khatas and the plan sanctioned to the petitioner as well as respondent no.3 relating to their respective properties be kept in abeyance till the disposal of the suits in O.S.No.1717/1998 and O.S.No.4938/2018. Therefore, admittedly, the khatha and

¶35

¶36

plan sanction of the property for which trade license has been now issued by respondent no.2 are kept in abeyance as on this date.

¶37

It is not in dispute that in the writ petition filed by respondent no.3 challenging the order dated 21.12.2019 passed by the Joint Commissioner, BBMP, Rajarajeshwarinagar Zone, no interim order has been passed. Under the circumstances, respondent no.2 was not justified in issuing the trade license to respondent no.3 for carrying the business in a property, of which the khatha and plan sanctioned has been kept in abeyance by the competent authority. Further, the learned Single Judge has also taken into consideration the order passed by the coordinate bench of this Court in M.F.A.No.1833/2019 on 05.07.2021 directing both the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the properties in dispute. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge was fully justified in rejecting IA-1/2021 filed by respondent no.3 for vacating the interim order dated 22.07.2021. We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

¶38

¶39

However, having regard to the peculiar facts of the case and also considering the hardship pleaded by respondent no.3, we request the learned Single Judge to expedite the hearing of the writ petition and dispose of the same at the earliest. All contentions of both the parties are kept open to be urged before the learned Single Judge.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

Smt. Hemalatha M v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Hemalatha M v. the Commissioner

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

T Rangaswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Vijaya Mahantesh Mulemane Vs State of Karnataka

Rosmerta Technologies Limited Vs Union of India

Sri Yerrappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri G S Sridhar Vs Smt. S R Nagaveni

Sanjana T D Vs State of Karnataka