Dismissed

Smt Muthulakshmi Pitchammal v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC7 Feb 2022WP/4255/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought a direction from the Corporation to demolish illegal construction by a respondent and enforce a right to use the land by prescription. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the prior civil suit had been dismissed on a final finding that the respondent exclusively owned the property.

What did the court decide?

The direction to the Commissioner to remove the illegal opening and demolish the construction is not granted.

Smt Muthulakshmi Pitchammal Vs the Commissioner — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.4255 OF 2016 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

SMT.MUTHULAKSHMI PITCHAMMAL W/O SRI.KRISHNA KONAR AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT NO.105, SHIVAJI ROAD CIVIL STATION, BENGALURU - 560 051

¶9

REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER SRI.K.KUMAR S/O SRI.KRISHNA KONAR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO.105, SHIVAJI ROAD CIVIL STATION BENGALURU - 560 051

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI.RAGHUNATH M.D., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND :

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGAR PALIKE N.R.SQUARE BENGALURU - 560 002

¶14

SRI.S.FAYAZ QUARESHI S/O SRI.K.SALEHA QUARESHI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶15

¶16

R/AT NO.21, "A" STREET NEAR KORACHARAPALYA SHIVAJINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 051

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI.S.J.PURANIK, ADVOCATE FOR R.1; SRI.NATARAJ G, ADVOCATE FOR R.2)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO TAKE SUITABLE ACTION AGAINST THE RESPONDENT NO.2 FOR HAVING KEPT IN OPENING TOWARDS THE CORPORATION LANE, I.E., SCHEDULE 'B' PROPERTY AND DEMOLISH THE ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION AS PER ANNEXURE -C DATED 28.12.2005 AND ETC.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking

¶23

for a direction to the 1st respondent to take suitable action against the 2nd respondent for having kept an opening towards the corporation lane, i.e. schedule 'B' property and demolish the illegal construction put up by the 2nd respondent.

¶24

¶25

I have considered the submissions made by

¶26

the learned counsel for the parties.

¶27

The petitioner herein had filed suit for declaration, that in schedule 'B' property, the writ petitioner has a right to use the same by way of prescription and directing the 1st respondent from preventing the 2nd respondent from putting up any construction on the said lane and for permanent injunction restraining the 2nd respondent from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of schedule property.

¶28

The Trial Court, categorically held that the schedule property in question exclusively belongs to 2nd respondent and the 1st respondent - corporation has no right and title over the property in question, and accordingly dismissed the suit.

¶29

¶30

In view of the categorical finding recorded by the Trial Court and the decree having attained finality, the relief sought for by the petitioner in the present writ petition cannot be granted. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶31

Sd/JUDGE

¶32

MKM

Smt Muthulakshmi Pitchammal v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Muthulakshmi Pitchammal v. the Commissioner

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

M/S Padmamba Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Veeresh Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Manjula Vs the Commissioner

Sri.v.Jayappa Vs the Commissioner

M/S Neelanjana Enterprises Vs the Principal Secretary to the

Sri H R Divakar Vs the State of Karnataka