Disposed

R Mayanna v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Sept 2022WP/52716/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges alleged illegal construction by adjoining owners violating the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act and a 2004 notification. The single-judge court directed the Zilla Panchayat and AE Engineer to consider petitioner representations within eight weeks and pass appropriate orders.

What did the court decide?

Directed 5th and 9th respondents to consider representations and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks by notifying parties.

R Mayanna Vs the State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.52716/2019 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI R. MAYANNA S/O R.P. MAYANNA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT RAMENAHALLI VILLAGE, D.M. POST, DEVALAPURA HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI SAMPATH A., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS INLAND WATER-WAYS

¶12

M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401.

¶14

THE ZILLA PANCHAYAT BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER MANDYA-571 401.

¶15

¶16

THE TAHSILDAR NAGAMANGALA TALUK NAGAMANGALA-571 432.

¶17

THE GRAM PANCHAYAT DEVARAMALLANAYAKANA HALLI PANCHAYAT NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 432

¶18

BY ITS PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER.

¶19

THE TALUK PANCHAYAT NAGAMANGALA

¶20

BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER-571 432.

¶21

CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR NO.29, VIJAYANAGARA II STAGE HINKAL, MYSORE-570 017.

¶22

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT NAGAMANGALA MANDYA DISTRICT-571 432.

¶23

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NO.4, PWD SUB DIVISION, NAGAMANGALA, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 432.

¶24

KRISHNEGOWDA S/O MR. R.P. MAYANNA GOWDA, R/AT RAMENAHALLI VILLAE, D.M.POST, DEVALAPURA HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 432.

¶25

SANNAPPA

¶26

S/O MR. R.P. MAYANNA GOWDA,

¶27

¶28

R/AT RAMENAHALLI VILLAGE, D.M.POST, DEVALAPURA HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 432.

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SRI SRINIVAS GOWDA R., AGA FOR R-1 TO R-4, R-8 & R-9; SRI B.J. SOMAYAJI, ADVOCATE FOR R-3, R-5 & R-6; SRI G.C. SHANMUKHA, ADVOCATE FOR R-7;

¶31

SRI PRAVEEN HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-10 & R-11)

¶32

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 TO FORTHWITH INSPECT THE CONSTRUCTION PUT UP BY THE RESPONDENT NO.10 AND 11 ADJOINING DEVALAPURA MARKONAHALIL ROAD AT RAMENAHALLI VILLAGE, DEVALAPURA HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK AND ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE CONSTRUCTION IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF KARNATAKA PANCHAYAT RAJ ACT AND AS TO WHETHER THE CONSTRUCTION IS WITHIN 25 METERS FROM THE CENTRE OF THE DEVALAPURA-MARKONAHALIL MAJOR DISTRICT ROAD VIDE ANNEXURE-Z AND AA AND ETC.

¶33

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

¶34

O R D E R

¶35

The petitioner submitted a representation with the 5th respondent Grama Panchayat and also with the 9th respondent alleging that the 10th and 11th respondents who are adjoining owners, have put up illegal construction without obtaining the building license from the 5th respondent and also the said construction is put up within the 25 meters from the building line

¶36

¶37

of the district road namely Devalapura-Markonahalli Road which is in contravention of the notification dated 18.10.2004. The petitioner's grievance is that the said representation has not been considered even to this date.

¶38

Learned counsel appearing for the 10th and 11th respondents submits that the construction put up is in accordance with the provisions of the Grama Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act and the same is not in contravention of the notification dated 18.10.2004 issued by the State of Karnataka.

¶39

I have examined the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶40

The dispute whether the 10th and 11th respondents have put up construction without obtaining building license from the 5th respondent and also in contravention to the notification dated 18.10.2004, requires to be considered by the 5th respondent and 9th respondent.

¶41

Therefore, it is expedient to dispose of the writ petition directing the 5th respondent and 9th respondent to

¶42

¶43

consider the representations dated 22.02.2019 and 18.03.2019 submitted by the petitioner at Annexure-D and Annexure-E respectively and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order after notifying the petitioner and the 10th and 11th respondents

¶44

All contentions are kept open.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

R Mayanna v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R Mayanna v. the 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

Sri Santosh Kumar Vs the Zonal Joint Commissioner (South)

The Primary Agricultural Credit Co. Operative Society Ltd., Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Syed Hameedulla Hassan Vs Sri Bheemaiah

Sri N Rajendra Vs the Chief Secretary

T M Rajeshwari Pandit Vs State of Karnataka

Sri K a Lathif Vs State of Karnataka