Allowed

N B Raghevendra Rao v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Sept 2022WP/8057/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order by the Town Municipality, Channagiri, rejecting his claim over a conservancy lane. The Court found the spot survey was conducted without notifying the owner and found no documents in respect of the property. The impugned order was quashed and re-survey was directed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 09.03.2021 is quashed. Fourth respondent directed to conduct re-survey in presence of petitioner and pass appropriate order within eight weeks.

N B Raghevendra Rao Vs State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.8057/2021 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

SRI. N.B.RAGHEVENDRA RAO, S/O LATE N.S.BHEEMARAO, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, KALLUSAGARA STREET, CHENNAGIRI TOWN, CHENNAGIRI, DAVANAGERE – 577 213.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.GURUDHATTA, ADV.)

¶11

AND :

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRTETARY TO GOVERNMENT, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶13

THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, 9^TH FLOOR, V.V.TOWER, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶14

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DAVANAGERE – 577 004.

¶16

THE CHIEF OFFICER TOWN MUNICIPALITY, CHANNAGIRI, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT – 577 213.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI.SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI.S.MAHESH, ADV., FOR R4)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS BEARING NO. DATED 09/03/2021 PASSED BY 4^TH RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURES – G; DIRECT THE 4^TH RESPONDENT TO REMOVE THE 11 FEET MUNICIPAL ONI IN THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY FROM THE MUNICIPAL RECORD AND NOT TO PROCEED ANY CIVIL WORK WITHOUT ESTABLISHING LEGAL RIGHTS OVER THE 11 FEET MUNICIPAL ONI AND ETC.,

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of the immovable property bearing Assessment No.127/122 measuring South to North 29ft.X East to West-25ft. and Northern side measuring 3 1/2 ft. oni

¶23

South to North 20 + 28/2 ft X East to West 20 ft. and in Assessment No.129/124 measuring East to West

¶24

¶25

40ft. X North to South 80 ft. situated at Chennagiri Town.

¶26

The petitioner's grievance is that the records are manipulated to the disadvantage of the petitioner wherein it is shown that the road/oni (conservancy lane) lies on the Northern side of the property bearing No.127/122. The petitioner submitted a representation to rectify the said discrepancy and since the same was not considered the petitioner had approached this Court in WP.No.21244/2019. This Court by order dated 13.01.2021 directed the respondent-Municipal Council to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner by conducting a spot mahazar in presence of the petitioner. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court, the respondent-Municipal Council after conducting the survey passed impugned order rejecting the representation submitted by the petitioner against which the present petition is filed.

¶27

¶28

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

¶29

that the spot mahazar was conducted without notifying the petitioner and the impugned order passed by the respondent-Municipal Council on the basis of the report submitted after spot inspection is in violation of principles of natural justice.

¶30

Learned counsel for the respondent

¶31

submits that the municipal records produced at Annexures-R1 and R2 and the spot mahazar clearly indicates that there exist conservancy lane on the Northern side of the petitioner's property. Hence, he submits that the impugned order passed by the Municipal Council is perfectly legal and the same does not warrant any interference.

¶32

I have examined the submissions made by

¶33

the learned counsel for the parties.

¶34

¶35

6. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court,

¶36

spot survey was conducted to find out whether there exists conservancy lane on the Northern side of the property bearing Assessment No.127/122. The respondent-Municipal Council has not furnished any documents to substantiate the claim that the survey was conducted in the presence of the petitioner. A perusal of Annexures-R1 and R2 indicates that the Assessment Register pertains to property bearing No.119, 120 and 128/123. However, no documents are produced in respect of the subject property. Hence, it would be appropriate to direct the respondent-Municipal Council to re-survey the subject property after notifying the petitioner and thereafter submit a report as to whether there exists a conservancy lane on the Northern side of the subject property. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

i. Writ petition is allowed.

¶39

¶40

ii. The impugned order dated 09.03.2021

¶41

passed by the fourth respondent at Annexure-G is hereby quashed.

¶42

iii. The fourth respondent is hereby directed to reconsider the representations dated 09.11.2017, 12.12.2017 and 27.02.2019 submitted by the petitioner at Annexures-A, B and D 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.

¶43

iv. The fourth respondent to conduct re-survey of the subject property in the presence of the petitioner and the petitioner is directed to appear on 30.09.2022 at 3:00 pm without waiting further notice from the fourth respondent-Municipal Council.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

RKA

N B Raghevendra Rao v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N B Raghevendra Rao 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

Mr Anand G Vs Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Shri Madhusudan H B Vs Ombudsman

Shri Madhusudan H.B Vs Ombudsman

Pushpa Narasimhan Vs Appellate Authority and Executive Officer

Smt. Jayamma Vs State of Karnataka

Sri B v Hemaraj Vs the Commissioner