Disposed

Smt. Prema S Uchil @ Premalatha S Kote v. Principle Secretary to Government

Karnataka HC19 Sept 2022WP/18493/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenging notices issued under CRZ regulations sought quashing of impugned orders. Court directed authorities to consider pending representations and barred coercive steps pending disposal of objections.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners permitted to file objections to show-cause notices; authorities barred from taking coercive steps pending such objections.

Smt. Prema S Uchil @ Premalatha S Kote Vs… — Environment and Pollution | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.18493/2022 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. PREMA S. UCHIL @ PREMALATHA S. KOTE W/O. SRI SATISH KOTE, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NEAR VISHNU KOTE TEMPLE, SOMESHWARA, UCHILA, MANGALURU, DAKSHINA KANNADA – 575 023.

¶8

SATHISH KOTE S/O. LATE CHENIYAPPA UCHIL, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT 9-42C, VISHNU KRIPA, NEAR KOTE TEMPLE, MANGALURU, SOMESHWARA, UCHILA, DAKSHINA KANNADA – 575 023.

¶9

... PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT SPECIAL DIRECTOR, (SPECIAL CELL), DEPARTMENT OF FOREST ENVIRONMENT AND ECOLOGY, MULTI STORED BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶13

KARNATAKA STATE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, (CONSTITUTED BY MOEF AND C.C. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) & (3) OF E(P) ACT-1956) ROOM NO.710, 7^TH FLOOR,

¶14

¶15

4^TH GATE, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001. REP. BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY.

¶16

REGIONAL DIRECTOR (ENVIRONMENT) DEPARTMENT OF FOREST ENVIRONMENT AND ECOLOGY, MANGALURU – 575 001.

¶17

SOMESHWARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH KOTEKARU POST, MANGALURU TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA – 575 022. REP. BY ITS PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER. ... RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI B.V. KRISHNA, ADDL. GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 04.06.2020 IN NO.A PA JEE 141 C R Z 2018 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AS PER ANNEXUREA; AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 07.08.2020 IN NO.A PA JEE 141 C R Z 2018 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AS PER ANNEXURE-B.

¶20

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

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The petitioners have preferred this petition seeking to quash the impugned notice dated 04/06/2020 in No.A PA JEE 141 C R Z 2018 (Annexure–A) and to quash the impugned order dated

¶23

17/08/2022 in A PA JEE 141 C R Z 2018 (Annexure-B)

¶24

¶25

issued by respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively. Pursuant to the notice issued as per Annexure – A and the impugned order as per Annexure - B, notice dated 02/09/2022 came to be issued as per Annexure – N by respondent No.3.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners

¶27

and learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶28

The facts of the case are that petitioner

¶29

No.1 is the daughter-in-law of late Cheniyappa Uchil and Seethamma and petitioner No.2 is the son of late Cheniyappa Uchil and Seethamma. The Cheniyappa Uchil/father of petitioner No.2 died on 01/09/1991 and Seethamma/mother of petitioner No.2 died on 01/04/2013 and that the petitioners’ family belongs to Fisher Folk Community and was residing in a tiled house bearing Door No.9-42, situated in bearing

¶30

¶31

Sy.No.107/3 at Someshwara Village, Mangaluru Taluk and due to the growing size of the household, the petitioners have renovated the existing house by converting it into RCC Roof. Before proceeding with the renovation, Seethamma/mother of petitioner No.2 filed an application dated 01/01/2012 to Gram Panchayat seeking permission to renovate the existing building. Pursuant to the said application, Gram Panchayat forwarded a letter dated 08/01/2012 to respondent No.3-Regional Director, Department of Forest Environment and Ecology to give opinion for grant of permission to renovate the house.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioners would

¶33

contend that as per Section 64(2) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (“the Act” for short), in terms of the deemed licence/permission, the deceased Seethamma has proceeded to renovate the existing house by converting it into the RCC Roof. As

¶34

¶35

per Section 64(2) of the Act, if the Gram Panchayat does not pass any order within a period of sixty days pursuant to the application filed by the petitioner seeking permission to renovate the house, such permission according to the learned counsel needs to

¶36

be considered as deemed permission. It is also contended that as per the Notification dated 19/02/1991 there was exemption for fishermen community who were within the CRZ III zone of the said Notification permits the fishermen community to reconstruct the dwelling unit within the ambit of CRZ Free Zone. Subsequently, even in the Notification dated 06/01/2011, the same exemption was afforded to the fishermen community. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Notification dated 18/01/2019 in Annexure – J in Clause 9(iv) it is stated that the dwelling units of the traditional coastal communities including fishermen, tribals as were

¶37

¶38

permissible under the provisions of the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2011 number S.O.19(E), dated the 6^th January, 2011, but which have not obtained formal approval from concerned authorities under the said Notification shall be considered by the respective Coastal Zone Management Authority and the dwelling units shall be regularized subject to the following conditions:

¶39

(a) these are not used for any commercial activity;

¶40

(b) these are not sold or transferred to non-traditional coastal community.

¶41

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of this Notification, the petitioners filed an application dated 04/11/2019 – Annexure-K seeking regularization of renovated RCC house in terms of the Notification. It is further submitted that inspite of representation submitted by

¶42

¶43

the petitioner, respondent No.4 issued notice as per Annexure – B dated 17/08/2022 without affording an opportunity of hearing rejected the application filed by the petitioner for regularization without there being a separate order and directed for demolition of the property vide show-cause notice dated 04/06/2020 (Annexure – A) and pursuant to the order dated 17/08/2022 (Annexure – B), show-cause notice dated 02/09/2022 (Annexure – N) has also been issued and thus sought to allow the petition.

¶44

The learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that the petitioner has not filed any objection to the show-cause notice dated 02/09/2022 and if the petitioners file their objection, the same would be considered by the authorities in accordance with law.

¶45

The said submission of learned Additional Government Advocate is placed on record.

¶46

¶47

In view of the said submission, the

¶48

grievance of the petition would suffice if the petitioner is permitted to file objections to the show-cause notice dated 04/06/2020 and 02/09/2022 and the respondent/authorities to consider the representation of the petitioners as per Annexure–K in accordance with law. In the meanwhile, till the objections and the representation of the petitioners are considered, the respondent/authorities shall not take any coercive step pursuant to the show-cause notice dated 04/06/2020 (Annexure–A) order dated 17/08/2022 (Annexure–B) and show-cause 02/09/2022 (Annexure–N).

¶49

In view of the said observation, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶50

SD/JUDGE

¶51

Smt. Prema S Uchil @ Premalatha S Kote v. Principle Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Prema S Uchil @ Premalatha S Kote v. Principle Secretary to Government

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

Sri. H. Gopalakrishna Vs State of Karnataka

M.Srinivasa Vs the State of Karnataka

Jumma Masjid Akkarangadi Jamath Committee Vs Karnataka State Board of Wakf

K S Gowda Education Trust (Regd) Vs the Authorized Officer

Heo Eco Tech Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

S.K Bikes Pvt.Ltd Vs State of Karnataka