Allowed

Rukmini W/O Late Parushram Birje v. the City Corporation Belagavi

Karnataka HC14 Feb 2023WP/100474/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged a survey notice issued without prior notice, claiming violation of natural justice. The High Court of Karnataka allowed the petition, quashing the notice and directed the Deputy Director of Land Records to notify all concerned parties and hear them before passing orders.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notice at Annexure-D dated NIL is quashed; Respondent No.5 directed to notify petitioner and all other concerned parties, hear them and pass appropriate orders.

Rukmini W/O Late Parushram Birje Vs the City Corporation… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 100474 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 100474/2023 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

RUKMINI W/O LATE PARUSHRAM BIRJE, AGE :70 YEARS, OCC.: HOUSEHOLD, R/O MAHADAVPUR, TQ AND DIST BELAGAVI-590001.

¶9

PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SADIQ N GOODWALA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE CITY CORPORATION, BELAGAVI BY ITS COMMISSIONER-590 001.

¶13

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (REVENUE), CITY CORPORATION, BELAGAVI-590001.

¶14

THE TALUKA SURVEYOR, CITY CORPORATION, BELAGVI-590001.

¶15

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, BELAGAVI -DIST. 590001.

¶16

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad

¶17

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, DIST. BELAGAVI-590001.

¶18

RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3, SRI PRASHANT V. MOGALI, HCGP FOR R4 & R5)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED NIL IN NO.TQ/PO533/2022-23 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE-D & WRX,

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

2 - WP No. 100474 of 2023

¶23

ORDER

¶24

In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned notice at Annexure-D dated nil and for other reliefs.

¶25

A perusal of the material on record, in particular, the impugned notice at Annexure-D dated nil, will indicate that the same has been issued pursuant to a complaint stated to have been given by the respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner, Belagavi City Corporation followed by order dated 17.12.2022 stated to have passed by the respondent No.5-DDLR. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though the petitioner is one of the persons referred to in the impugned notice, the petitioner was neither notified nor given any opportunity prior to respondent No.5-DDLR passing the order dated 17.12.2022 pursuant to which the impugned notice is issued and consequently the impugned notice deserves to be quashed.

¶26

Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No.1 to 3 and the learned HCGP appearing on behalf of the respondents No.4 and 5 submit that there is no merit in the writ petition and prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶27

¶28

WP No. 100474 of 2023

¶29

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, prior to acting upon the complaint dated 14.12.2022 and passing an order dated 17.12.2022 which culminated in the impugned notice at Annexure-D dated nil directing survey to be conducted on 25.01.2023, petitioner was not notified before a decision to direct survey was taken by the DDLR on 17.12.2022 coupled with the short/ small gap of time between 14.12.2022 and 17.12.2022 which clearly indicates that the impugned notice is clearly violative of principles of natural justice and the same deserves to be quashed. The contention of the respondent No.2Corporation that the petition is premature since the same is filed only against a survey notice cannot be accepted in view of violation of principles of natural justice referred to supra. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned notice deserves to be quashed.

¶30

In the result, I pass the following order.

¶31

ORDER

¶32

i) Writ Petition is allowed;

¶33

ii) Impugned notice at Annexure-D dated NIL is quashed;

¶34

¶35

WP No. 100474 of 2023

¶36

iii) The respondent No.5-DDLR is directed to notify the petitioner and all other concerned parties, hear them and pass appropriate orders / take appropriate decision pursuant to the complaint dated 14.12.2022 submitted by the respondent No.2 and proceed further in accordance with law;

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

BVV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54

Rukmini W/O Late Parushram Birje v. the City Corporation Belagavi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rukmini W/O Late Parushram Birje v. the City Corporation Belagavi

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

Sri. Kandi Rami Reddy S/O Kandi Dodda Timma Reddy Vs Sri. P. Nagi Reddy S/O Polike Venkataramanappa

Mallanagouda Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Geeta W/O Ashok Tubachi Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Savitha W/O Late Badarinarayan Padaki Vs Smt. Manjula W/O Late Govindarao Padaki

Prateek S. Goudru Vs Union of India

Vinayaka S/O Balu Ambedkar Vs Shivappa S/O Adiveppa Malagi