Disposed

Honnaraju v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Sept 2022WP/15623/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition under Article 226 sought directions against illegal construction on a public road. The court directed the second respondent to consider the petitioners' representation and pass an order within four weeks, directing the removal of illegal construction if found unlawful.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioners' representation and pass an order within four weeks to remove illegal construction if the construction is illegal.

Honnaraju Vs the State of Karnataka — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.15623 OF 2022 (LB-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

HONNARAJU AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O. LATE NANJAPPA,

¶8

HONNAIAH. K. C. AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, S/O. CHIKKANNA,

¶9

HANUMANTHARAJU. S AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/O. SIDDAANJINAPPA,

¶10

RAJU. S. M. AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O. MUDDAPPA,

¶11

MUNIRAJU. S. D. AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, S/O. DODDEGOWDA,

¶12

BHAGYAMMA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, W/O. DODDEGOWDA,

¶13

JAYALAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶14

¶15

W/O. GANGA MALLAIAH,

¶16

SHWETH. S AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, W/O. KEMPARAJU N. C.,

¶17

UMESH. S AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS S/O. SIDDAHONNAPPA, ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF SHAMABATTARAPALYA VILLAGE, RAILWAY GOLLAHALLI POST, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU, NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU-562 123. ...PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SRI NARAYANASWAMY K & ASSOCIATES, ADVS.) AND:

¶19

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, PANCHAYATH RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶20

THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER GOPALAPURA GRAMAPANCHAYATH, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU-562 123.

¶21

SRI. KANTHARAJU AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, S/O. LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA, RESIDING AT NO. 63/42, SHAMBATTARAPALYA,

¶22

¶23

RAILWAY GOLLAHALLI POST, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU-562 123.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI M.S.DEVARAJU, ADV. FOR R2)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN RESPECT OF ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION TAKEN UP BY THE R-3 IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY BEARING KANESHUMARI NO.63/42 SITUATED AT SHAMBATTARAPALYA VILLAGE, RAILWAY GOLLAHALLI POST, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT AND ETC.

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

The petitioners are before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to take immediate effective legal steps to prevent the illegal construction put up by the 3^rd respondent on public road and to take steps to remove

¶30

¶31

the illegal construction, vide representation dated

¶32

09.06.2022 Annexure-B.

¶33

The petitioners have submitted a representation to the 2^nd respondent to stop illegal construction put up by the 3^rd respondent. The petitioners’ grievance is that the said representation has not been considered.

¶34

Learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent submits that

¶35

the representation submitted by the petitioners has been considered and steps have been taken to remove the alleged illegal encroachment made by the 3^rd respondent.

¶36

Submission of the learned counsel for the

¶37

petitioners is placed on record.

¶38

It is expedient to dispose of this petition directing the 2^nd respondent to consider the representation dated

¶39

09.06.2022 submitted by the petitioners at Annexures-B and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within

¶40

¶41

a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that if the construction put up by the 3^rd respondent is illegal, the 2^nd respondent to take appropriate action for removing the said illegal construction in accordance with law.

¶42

With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

NG* CT:bms

Honnaraju v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Honnaraju 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

Smt.K.Parijatha Vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Smt. M.S. Rajeshwari Vs the Joint Commissioner

M/S P M J Constructions Private Limited Vs the Commissioner

K Nirmala Vs The Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Saarvajanika Shree Ganeshotsava Samithi (R) Vs the State of Karnataka

K Ravishankar Vs M Krishnappa