Disposed

Smt. Chandramma v. the Chief Executive Officer

Karnataka HC7 Nov 2022WP/6860/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by an agriculturist seeking a building license. The court directed the respondent authority to consider the license application within eight weeks, subject to the outcome of a pending civil suit regarding land ownership.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondent authority to consider the application for issuance of license within eight weeks.

Smt. Chandramma Vs the Chief Executive Officer — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

-1-

¶2

WP No. 6860 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 6860 OF 2020 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. CHANDRAMMA W/O C.S.RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS AGRICULTURIST, R/O GOLLAHARAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577552.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. RAVINDRA V S., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DAVANAGERE -577002.

¶13

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577213.

¶14

THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER GRAM PANCHAYATH, BELLEGANUDU, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577552.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. J.M. ANIL KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1;

¶17

SRI. N.R.JAGADEESHWARA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 20.08.2019

¶19

-2-

¶20

WP No. 6860 of 2020

¶21

ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The present petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the endorsement dated 20.08.2019 at Annexure-F issued by respondent No.3 in and by which petitioner has been informed that in view of the pendency of the suit in O.S.No.161/2011 filed by one Chowdappa against 26 persons on the file of Principal Civil Judge, Channagiri claiming ownership of entire land in Sy.No.21 and till disposal of the said suit request for grant of license to the petitioner cannot be considered. Petitioner also sought for writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.3 to implement the judgment passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge, Channagiri in O.S.No.127 of 2015 dated 18.08.2018 and to issue license to the Petitioner for constructing residential building on the site allotted in her favour bearing Site No.6, measuring 30 ft x 40 ft,

¶25

-3-

¶26

WP No. 6860 of 2020

¶27

situated at Gollarahalli Village, Channagiri Taluk, Davanagere District as per Annexure-D.

¶28

This court in its earlier order

¶29

dated:03.02.2020 passed in an identical matter between Smt.Channamma and The Chief Executive Officer and others in W.P.52691/2019 (LB-RES) while disposing of the writ petition taking note of the identical facts and situation at paragraphs 4 and 5 has held as under:

¶30

"4. Perusal of the plaint in O.S.No.161/2011 would indicate that the present petitioner is not arrayed as defendant and that the relief sought in the said suit is one of injunction. Taking note of the judgment in O.S.No.130/2015, respondent No.3 is directed to consider the grant of license and pass orders. However, as the respondents herein are also defendants in O.S.No.161/2011, in light of the facts made out and also the judgment passed in W.A.Nos.1231-1242/2010 as well as O.S.No.130/2015, respondents to defend the suit in an appropriate manner. It is made clear that in the event any adverse order is passed in O.S.161/2011 and if the legal consequence of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.161/2011 would also bind the petitioner herein, same is to be taken note of by the petitioner.

¶31

5. Keeping open other contentions, respondent No.3 is to take steps for grant of building license

¶32

-4-

¶33

WP No. 6860 of 2020

¶34

expeditiously within a period of eight weeks from today, in the light of the observations made above."

¶35

That apart petitioner herein had also filed a suit in O.S.No.127/2015 against the respondents which was decreed by Judgment and decree 18.08.2018 declaring the plaintiff to be absolute

¶36

owner in possession of the suit property and further directed the third defendant therein to issue license to the plaintiff to put up construction in the suit property.

¶37

The aforesaid position is not disputed by the respondents.

¶38

In view of the aforesaid facts of the matter and also in view of the direction given by the Coordinate Bench of this court in its decision stated above, petitioner is also entitled for similar remedy.

¶39

Hence, the following:

¶40

-5-

¶41

WP No. 6860 of 2020

¶42

ORDER

¶43

Writ petition is disposed of. The respondent authority shall consider issuance of license to the petitioner.

¶44

It is made clear that issuance of such license and construction if any to be put up would be subject to the result of O.S.No.161/2011. Though the petitioner is not a party to the said suit, in view of the similar order passed by this court and the petitioner would be bound by the outcome of the said suit. Respondent authority shall consider the application for license within eight weeks from the date of receipt

¶45

of certified copy of this order.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

SBN

Smt. Chandramma v. the Chief Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Chandramma v. the Chief Executive Officer

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

Icon Infra Shelters India Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Vedic Lore Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagar Palike

Smt. B v Venkatalakshmamma Vs the Commissioner

Shri N Venkata Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Vijayraj Vs Government of Karnataka

Sri Istakees @ Joseph Vs the Commissioner