Dismissed

M/S Shankar Engineering Industries v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Jun 2022WP/36130/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenged the setting aside of prohibited orders and notices regulating industrial shed construction. The High Court held that the petitioner was not aggrieved as the respondent developer did not violate setback norms and had reportedly purchased the disputed southern site, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed; orders dated 13.08.2009 and 15.06.2015 relying on justification for dropping proceedings were upheld.

M/S Shankar Engineering Industries Vs State of Karnataka — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.36130/2015 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S SHANKAR ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES SHIVALLI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, MANIPAL ALEVOOR ROAD, MANIPAL, UDUPI DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. S.N.BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

¶13

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER UDUPI DISTRICT UDUPI-576101.

¶14

UDUPI CITY MUNICIPALITY UDUPI DISTRICT-576101 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶15

M.D. GANESH

¶16

FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THIS PETITIONER SHARADA NAGARA M.D.A. CONCRETE PRODUCT

¶17

¶18

MANIPAL, ALEVOOR ROAD, MANIPAL, UDUPI-576109

¶19

(BY SRI. V.S.KALASURMATH, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2;

¶20

SRI. MANMOHAN P.N., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4; SRI. T.I.ABDULLA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 IN THE ORDER DATED 13.08.2009 BEARING NO.UNASA.A3.BA.362/2007-08 (ANNEXURE-H) AND ALSO THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN THE ORDER DATED 15.06.2015 BEARING NO.GKO(3)/CR/2/2013-14 (ANNEXURE-J).

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner has challenged the Order dated 13.08.2009 passed by the respondent No.3 by which a provisional Order dated 24.11.2008 passed by it under Section 187(9)(a) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (for short, ‘the Act of 1964’) and the show cause notice issued under Section 187(9)(b) of the Act of 1964 were unconditionally withdrawn. The petitioner has also challenged the Order dated 15.06.2015 passed by the

¶25

¶26

respondent No.2 confirming the aforesaid order passed by the respondent No.3.

¶27

The petitioner claims that ‘Manipal Industrial

¶28

Area’ developed by the Karnataka Small Scale Industrial Development Corporation (henceforth referred to as ‘KSSIDC’) was transferred to the respondent No.3 for maintenance and regulation. The respondent No.4 sought for grant of a licence to construct an industrial shed in industrial plot No.18 on 16.06.2008. The respondent No.3 granted the licence on 16.10.2008 which was valid for a period of one year. The petitioner alleged that the grant of licence was against the building bye-laws. The petitioner, therefore, sought information vide representation dated 16.10.2018 from the respondent No.3 regarding the road standards to be followed within its limits. The respondent No.3 clarified that the minimum width of road in industrial areas is 12 Meters. The petitioner lodged a complaint with the respondent No.3 against the respondent No.4 alleging that the respondent No.4 had not left the minimum

¶29

¶30

setback for the road. Based on this complaint, the respondent No.3 issued a provisional Order dated 24.11.2008 under Section 187(9)(c) of the Act of 1964 and directed the respondent No.4 to stop the construction. It was stated in the provisional Order that, as against the permitted width of the building at 14.50 Meters, the respondent No.4 was constructing 15.90 Meters. Following this, another notice was issued to the respondent No.4 stating that the Junior Engineer found that the respondent No.4 was constructing the building in violation of the sanctioned plan and therefore, directed the respondent No.4 to adhere to the sanctioned plan. The respondent No.3 failed to pass the final Order which compelled the petitioner to file W.P.No.3234/2009. This Court in terms of the Order dated 01.04.2009, directed the respondent No.3 herein to consider the explanation, which was to be filed by the respondent No.4 herein, continue the proceedings, and to conclude the same within the time stipulated therein. The respondent No.3 thereafter passed an Order dated 13.08.2009 unconditionally withdrawing the

¶31

¶32

provisional Order as well as show cause notice on the ground that the respondent No.4 had left setback on three sides of the building which was more than what was prescribed and area constructed was less than the floor area ratio as per the sanctioned plan. Being aggrieved by the said Order, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the respondent No.2, who rejected the same in terms of its Order dated 15.06.2015.

¶33

Being aggrieved by the above, the petitioner

¶34

has filed the present writ petition.

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Order passed by the respondent No.3 clearly discloses that the respondent No.4 had failed to leave sufficient setback on the southern side of his plot. He further submitted that the respondent No.3 could not have condoned the violation on the ground that the respondent No.4 had left more than the prescribed setback on the other three sides of the property. He, therefore, submitted that the respondent No.3 was bound to comply with the

¶36

¶37

requirement of law in letter and spirit rather than exercising the discretion to condone the violation, which was without the authority of the law.

¶38

Per contra , the learned counsel for the

¶39

respondent No.4 submitted that the respondent No.4 was permitted to put up construction of a building which was 14.50 Meters wide and that the respondent No.4 has restricted the construction to 14.50 Meters. He also submitted that on all the three sides of the property, he has left more than the prescribed setback area and that as per the sanctioned plan, the floor area was 362.50 sq.m, but the respondent No.4 had constructed only 352 sq.m. He, therefore, submitted that the petitioner was not affected in any way whatsoever as the property of the petitioner lay on the northern side of the property of the respondent No.4. He also submitted that the service road mentioned in the plan of the layout is retained as it is. He also contended that on the southern side of his plot, the respondent No.4 had entered into a transaction to

¶40

¶41

purchase a stray site from the KSSIDC and therefore, the petitioner would not be affected in any way whatsoever.

¶42

I have considered the submissions made by

¶43

the learned counsel for the parties. I have also perused the documents enclosed with the writ petition and the statement of objections and the rejoinder filed by the petitioner.

¶44

It is evident that a dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No.4 related to a service road formed by the KSSIDC in the industrial area abutting the property of the petitioner and respondent No.4. While the petitioner claims that the service road measured 9 Meters in width, the respondent No.4 contends that it measures 3 Meters wide. The fact that it measured 3 Meters wide is evident from Annexure-R10 to the statement of objections filed by the learned counsel for respondent No.4, which is a communication dated 16.07.2008 addressed by the Deputy Chief Manager (I/c), KSSIDC to the respondent No.3, indicating that the service

¶45

¶46

road lying between shop Nos.D-4, M-8 and plot No.18 is three Meters wide. This corresponds with the copy of the layout plan of the industrial area which is enclosed as Annexure-R11 to the statement of objections. The contention of the petitioner that the width of the road in an industrial area within the limits of the respondent No.3 should be 12 Meters is inconsequential as the layout is not formed by the respondent No.3, but it is formed by the KSSIDC and handed over to the respondent No.3 for maintenance and regulation. The claim of the petitioner that the respondent No.3 was bound to take action against the respondent No.4 for not maintaining proper setback on the southern side of his plot is unacceptable since the respondent No.3 has found that the respondent No.4 has left more than the prescribed setback on all the three sides and has not exceeded the plot coverage area. On the southern side of his plot, the respondent No.4 claims that he has entered into a transaction to purchase a stray site belonging to the KSSIDC. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be held to be affected by the alleged violation of the

¶47

¶48

sanctioned plan. If the respondent No.4 has purchased the industrial plot on the southern side of his plot, the setback area on the southern side would obviously be regulated by KSSIDC or the respondent No.3.

¶49

In that view of the matter, the respondent No.3 was justified in dropping the proceedings against the respondent No.4. There is no merit in this Writ Petition and the same is dismissed.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

sma

M/S Shankar Engineering Industries v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Shankar Engineering Industries 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

C Balakrishna Vs the Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (Bbmp)

Nanjegowda Vs Grama Panchayath

Sri Muraligowda S R Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Anwar Nawab Vs the Commisisoner

Sri a G Ramachandra Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri M Abdul Aziz Vs the Commissioner