Allowed

Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Jun 2022WP/11750/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging proposed demolition of a building portion. Petitioner claimed lawful title and approval. Court allowed petition, directing municipality to follow due process, inspect property, and hear petitioner before demolition within one month.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed relief. Respondent No.2 directed not to demolish building without following due process of law, conducting hearing and inspection.

Chandrappa Vs State of Karnataka — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.NATARAJ

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.11750 OF 2015 (LB - RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

CHANDRAPPA, S/O LATE PAKIRAVA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RETIRED DAFEDAR, R/O DR.NO.281,I MAIN, I CROSS, J.C.EXTENSION, NOW CALLED HIGH SCHOOL EXTENSION, HARIHAR CITY – 577 601, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.S.V.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S.BUILDINGS, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶13

THE HARIHAR CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, HARIHAR – 577 601, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SMT.PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA FOR R1; SRI.AKSHAY B.M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.B.K.MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶16

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION OF THE RESPONDENTS TO DEMOLISH THE PORTION OF BUILDING EXISTS ON THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY TO THIS WRIT PETITION WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE PROCEDURES ESTABLISHED BY LAW AS ONE WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW AND ETC.,

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner has sought for a writ to declare that the action of the respondent No.2 in demolishing a portion of the building that exists on the schedule property is without jurisdiction and without the authority of law. The petitioner has also sought for a direction to the respondents not to demolish the building of the petitioner without following the due process of law.

¶21

The petitioner claims that the residential site measuring 40 X 25 feet was allotted to him pursuant to a resolution of the Town Municipality, Harihara on 11.09.1978, which was followed by a sale certificate dated 20.11.1978. He claims that the said property was

¶22

¶23

registered in the name of the petitioner in the records of the municipality and later was assessed to tax. The petitioner is stated to have constructed a two floor building after obtaining proper approval, plan and license from the municipality. When things stood thus, the respondents had marked a portion of the building on the northern side of the property alleging that the petitioner had encroached into the storm water drain. The petitioner alleges that on 14.03.2015, the officials of the respondent No.2 went to his property with a demolition squad and attempted to demolish the building.

¶24

The petitioner contends that the action of the respondent No.2 is illegal and highhanded and that the respondent No.2 ought to have conducted an inspection of the property of the petitioner and ought to have measured the same.

¶25

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 on the

¶26

other hand submits that the petitioner is in possession of an area measuring more than 40 X 25 feet and has

¶27

¶28

encroached into the storm water drain on the northern side and therefore, the respondent No.2 after inspecting the building of the petitioner had marked the area that had to be demolished.

¶29

The submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 makes it clear that the due process of law was not followed at the time of marking the building of the petitioner for demolition. It is now trite that the respondent No.2 cannot unilaterally act against the building constructed by the petitioner in the year 1991. It is incumbent upon the respondent No.2 to hear the petitioner, conduct a physical inspection of the property in question and thereafter pass appropriate orders determining the alleged encroachment by the petitioner and thereafter, take steps to demolish the encroached portion.

¶30

In that view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed. The respondent No.2 is directed not to take any action to demolish the construction put up by the

¶31

¶32

petitioner in the property bearing Municipal Katha No.18/18/18, 1st Main, 1st Cross, J.C.Extension (Now called High School Extension), Harihara City measuring 40 X 25 feet without following the due process of law. In order to facilitate the respondent No.2 to conduct an enquiry, the petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent No.2 with all documents on 30.06.2022.

¶33

The respondent No.2 shall hear the petitioner and conduct a physical inspection of the property in the presence of the petitioner or any of his family members and thereafter, pass appropriate order within a period of one month thereafter. Until then, the respondent No.2 is directed not to demolish the building.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

NR/-

Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrappa v. 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 Sadananda Vs the Commissioner

Sri Krishnappa Vs the Bhruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Smt Sunitha Vs the Bhruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Sri S F M Ummer Vs the Commissioner Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Sri Kashif Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Siddalingaiah B R Vs the Assistant Commissioner