Allowed

G Aswathamma v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Feb 2022WP/1774/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the Karnataka High Court directed the Panchayath Development Officer to consider the petitioner's representations dated 12.11.2021 and 29.12.2021 regarding illegal encroachment and construction on a public road, invoking Rule 3 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Rules, 2011.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent No.2 to consider the representations of 12.11.2021 and 29.12.2021 and pass an appropriate order within four weeks.

G Aswathamma Vs State of Karnataka — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.1774 OF 2022 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

G ASWATHAMMA, W/O LATE SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING AT KANNUR VILLAGE AND POST, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU - 562149 (THE PETITIONER IS NOT CLAIMING ANY BENEFITS UNDER SENIOR CITIZENSHIP ACT). ...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI HARSHA KUMAR GOWDA H.R, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ, M S BUILDING, DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560001.

¶12

PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER (PDO), KANNURU GRAMA PANCHAYATH,

¶13

KANNURU, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI,

¶14

¶15

BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU - 562149.

¶16

SMT NANJAMMA,

¶17

W/O LATE K R LAKSHMAN, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.

¶18

SRI CHANDRASHEKAR @ CHANDRU S/O LATE K R LAKSHMAN, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.

¶19

SRI RAGHAVENDRA @ RAGHU, S/O LATE K R LAKSHMAN, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.3 TO 5 RESIDING AT KANNUR VILLAGE AND POST, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU - 562149.

¶20

SMT RUKMINI, W/O ASHWATHANARAYANA GOWDA, D/O LATE K R LAKSHMAN, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT ADUR VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI POST AND HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560049. …RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI NITHYANANDA K.R, HCGP FOR R1, SRI B.J.SOMAYAJI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶22

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT TO THE R-2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS DTD.12.11.2021 AND 29.12.2021 OF THE PETITIONER PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D AND E RESPECTIVELY.

¶24

¶25

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

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

Petitioner has submitted a representation with the second respondent to remove the illegal encroachment and construction put up by the respondents Nos.3 to 6 on the public road Petitioner's grievance is that the said representation has not been considered even to this day.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Respondent No.2 is under an obligation to remove the encroachment and illegal construction put up by Respondent Nos.3 to 6 in terms of Rule 3 of Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Removal of Obstructions and Encroachments) Rules, 2011.

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 submits that action will be taken to remove the illegal encroachment and construction put up by the respondents No. 3 to 6 in terms of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Removal of Obstructions and Encroachments) Rules, 2011.

¶30

¶31

The submission made by the learned counsel for

¶32

respondent No.2 is placed on record.

¶33

Therefore, it is expedient to dispose of the writ petition directing respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated 12.11.2021 and 29.12.2021 submitted by the petitioner vide Annexures-D and E in terms of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Removal of Obstructions and Encroachments) Rules, 2011 and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of four(4) weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

G Aswathamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G Aswathamma 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

B v Shivashankar Vs Tahsildar

S. Parathasarathi Vs Assistant Revenue Officer

Dakshina Kannada Zilla Beedibadi Vyaparasthra Shreyobhivrudhi Sangha (R) Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Shruthi Y Vs the Commissioner

L Govindraj Vs the Chief Commissioner

M Srinivas Vs the Executive Engineer