Disposed

Sri T S Kantharaju v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC7 Sept 2022WP/22200/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court disposed of the matter by granting liberty to the petitioner to submit an application to purchase the subject property under Section 176 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976.

What did the court decide?

liberty to submit an application for purchasing the subject property under Section 176 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976; Direction to R1 to consider the application within three month

Sri T S Kantharaju Vs the Commissioner — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.22200 OF 2021(LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

SRI T S KANTHARAJU S/O LATE SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS SELF E 740, 2^ND CROSS BEHIND HMS SCHOOL IDSMT LAYOUT SIRA GATE TUMKUR-572106.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.MADHU C S., ADV.)

¶11

AND

¶12

1 . THE COMMISSIONER TUMKUR CITY CORPORATION TOWNHALL BHAGWAN MAHAVEER RD GANDHI NAGAR TUMAKUR KARNATAKA-572102.

¶13

2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKUR MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA TUMAKURU, KARNATAKA-572101.

¶14

3 . THE COMMISSIONER TUMKUR URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BELGAUM ROAD KUVEMPUNAGAR VENKATESH RAO COLONY TUMKUR KARNATAKA-572101.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

¶17

(BY SMT. SAKSHI M KRISHNA, ADV. FOR SRI. SUBRAMANYA R., ADV. FOR R1: SRI.T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADV. FOR R3)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R1 AND 2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE PETITIONER DATED 15.12.2020 AT ANNEXURE-J AND REPRESENTATION DATED 15.12.2020 AT ANNEXURE-K AND DIRECT THE R1 TO CONSIDER THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER TO ALLOT/GRANT THE SITE.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner claims that he has put up

¶22

construction on the subject property belonging to respondent No.1 and has submitted a representation with the said respondent to regularize the construction

¶23

put up by him on the property belonging to respondent No.1. The petitioner’s grievance is that the said representation has not been considered by respondent No.1.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 submits that there is no provision for

¶25

¶26

regularization of the construction put up on the property belonging to respondent No.1 and in the absence of any provision, the representation

¶27

submitted by the petitioner cannot be considered.

¶28

It is undisputed that the petitioner has put

¶29

up constructions on the property belonging to respondent No.1 and he is in possession of the same for the last 40 years. Therefore, it is expedient to dispose of the writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner to submit an application for purchasing the subject property as specified under Section 176 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976.

¶30

If such an application is submitted by the petitioner, respondent No.1 to consider the same and pass the appropriate order in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of application to be submitted by the petitioner.

¶31

¶32

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶33

Sd/JUDGE

¶34

HA/-

Sri T S Kantharaju v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri T S Kantharaju v. the Commissioner

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 Farooq S F Vs State of Karnataka

Sighbathulla Shariff Vs State of Karnataka

Shivananda M S Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Boramma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

M Venktesh Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Jalandhar Reddy Vs the Commissioner