Allowed

H Srinivas v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC21 Jun 2022WP/24589/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 226, the petitioner, alleging encroachment on setback rights due to a demolished house and unauthorized construction by the adjacent property owner, sought a writ of mandamus directing the Municipal Commissioner to consider his representation and enforce setback compliance under the Karnataka Municipalities Act.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Commissioner to consider the petitioner's representation dated 28.01.2015 in light of the Deputy Commissioner's order and to ensure no unauthorized construction occurs.

H Srinivas Vs the Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.24589 OF 2015 (LB-UC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

H. SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, S/O LATE VARADARAJU, R/AT 2^ND CROSS, FORT, KOLARAMMA LAYOUT, KOLAR-563101.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. M.V.CHANDRASHEKARA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE COMMISSIONER TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, KOLAR-563101.

¶12

R. NAGARAJ S/O LATE RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT 2^ND CROSS, FORT, KOLARAMMA LAYOUT, KOLAR-563101.

¶13

…RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI. J.G. CHANDRAMOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶15

VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 05.04.2022 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO RESPONDENT No.2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶16

¶17

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28.01.2015 MADE BY THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.

¶18

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.1 to consider the representation dated 28.01.2015 and take necessary steps in accordance with law as per the directions issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District, in MUN.Appeal No.17/2003-04.

¶21

The petitioner claims to be the owner of the property bearing khatha No.39, Assessment No.41, situated at Kolaramma Layout, Forty, Kolar (henceforth referred to as 'subject property'). He claims that a house was constructed in the subject property nearly 47 years back. The petitioner claims that the respondent No.2 is the owner of the adjacent property on the southern side, where a old house existed. He claims that there was set

¶22

¶23

back of 5 to 6 feet between the house of the petitioner and house of the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 demolished the old house and started putting up the construction without leaving set back, which compelled the petitioner to file an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar, in in MUN.Appeal No.17/2003-04 under Section 306 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964. The Deputy Commissioner in terms of its order dated 02.07.2014 allowed the appeal and quashed the licence granted to the respondent No.2 and directed the respondent No.1 to inspect the property in question and the construction put up by the respondent No.2 to ascertain the set back area. However, the respondent No.1 has failed to comply the directions issued by the Deputy Commissioner and therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for appropriate directions.

¶24

The learned counsel for the respondent No.1

¶25

submitted that the representation of the petitioner would be considered in accordance with law.

¶26

¶27

The respondent No.1 is bound in law to consider the representation filed by the petitioner, more particularly, in view of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar, directing the respondent No.1 to ensure the maintenance of the set back area. Hence, a duty is cast upon the respondent No.1 to ensure that the appropriate set backs are left behind between the property of the petitioner and the respondent No.2. The respondent No.1 is also under an obligation to ensure that there is no construction put up without a sanctioned plan and licence as provided under the provisions of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964.

¶28

In that view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed. The respondent No.1 is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 28.01.2015 in the light of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar in MUN.Appeal No.17/2003-04 and pass appropriate orders. The respondent No.1 shall also ensure that the respondent No.2 does not put up any construction without

¶29

¶30

obtaining sanction of a plan and licence and may put construction in accordance with such plan and licence.

¶31

Sd/JUDGE

¶32

PMR

H Srinivas v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H Srinivas 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

Smt. Soubhagya Vs the State of Karnataka

Krishnappa Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Saraswathi Vs State of Karnataka

J Ramesh Chand Vs the Commissioner

Sri C S Sampangiramaiah Vs Ajjawara Grama Panchayat

Mr Shabeer Majeed Vs the Commissioner