Partly allowed

Basappa S/O Bharamappa Airani v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Mar 2023WP/100661/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition in part, directing the City Municipal Council to examine the unauthorized construction complaint lodged by the petitioner, while noting that easementary disputes must be adjudicated by the Civil Court.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed in part; Directorate of Municipal Administration directed to take cognizance of complaint lodged by petitioner regarding unauthorized construction by Respondent No.4.

Basappa S/O Bharamappa Airani Vs the State of… — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 100661 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 100661 OF 2023 (LB-UC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

BASAPPA S/O. BHARAMAPPA AIRANI AGE: 80 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED, R/O. CTS NO. 2871/A2, NADIGGERI ONI, OLD TALUKA OFFICE, RANEBENNUR, TQ: RANEBBUR, DIST: HAVERI -581115.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SMT. NIRMALA B G, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY

¶14

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU -560001.

¶15

Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Date: 2023.03.28 10:32:24 +0530

¶16

THE DIRECTORATE OF MUNCIPAL ADMINISTRATION AMBEDKAR ROAD, VISHVESHWARIAH TOWER, SAMPANGI RAMA NAGAR, BENGALURU-560001.

¶17

THE COMMISSIONER CITY MUNCIPAL COUNCIL RANEBENNUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI -581115.

¶18

KARABASAPPA LAXMAPPA AIRANI AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, NADIGGER ONI, P.B.ROAD, RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581115.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI M.H. PATIL, AGA FOR R1 AND 2) (SRI PRASHANT HOSAMANI, ADV. FOR R3) (SRI HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADV. FOR R4)

¶21

¶22

WP No. 100661 of 2023

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO.2 TO INITIATE NECESSARY ACTION AGAINST RESPONDENT NO.3 IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW FOR ISSUING ANNEXURE-F DATED 05/06/2020 WITHOUT CONDUCTING PROCEEDINGS ON 05/06/2020 AND TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION AT ANNEXURE-D DATED 06/09/2016 AND DIRECT RESPONDENT NO.3 TO REMOVE UNAUTHORIZED AND ILLEGALLY CONSTRUCTED BUILDING IN ENTIRE CTS NO. 2872A-2/B IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The captioned writ petition is filed by petitioner

¶27

feeling aggrieved by endorsement issued by respondent No.3 dated 5.6.2020 vide Annexure-F relegating petitioner to workout his remedy before competent Civil Court.

¶28

2. The petitioner is asserting that he has easementary right in the property owned by respondent No.4. The petitioner is also alleging that respondent No.4 has put-up construction without securing permission from competent authority. The petitioner has lodged a complaint vide Annexure-D indicating that respondent No.4 has put-up construction without securing permission.

¶29

¶30

WP No. 100661 of 2023

¶31

3. The captioned writ petition is filed seeking a

¶32

writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to take action against respondent No.3/CMC.

¶33

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for respondents No.1 and 2 and learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4.

¶34

5. Dispute on hand is found to be in twofolds. Firstly, the petitioner is asserting easementary right over property of respondent No.4 which cannot be adjudicated before authorities, therefore, remedy if any, available to the petitioner is to approach the competent Civil Court. Second grievance now sought to be agitated before this Court relates to construction made by respondent No.4 without securing permission. This Court is of the view that if adjoining owner has lodged a complaint complaining that there is construction without securing permission, it is incumbent upon respondent No.3 to notify respondent No.4 and take necessary action against respondent No.4 in accordance with law. If construction is found to be within

¶35

¶36

WP No. 100661 of 2023

¶37

his property, authority is bound to look into the provisions and seek appropriate explanation from the owner and thereafter proceed to take action in accordance with law. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to succeed in part.

¶38

6. For the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the

¶39

following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

a) Writ Petition stands allowed in part.

¶42

b) Respondent No.3 is directed to take cognizance of complaint lodged by petitioner vide Annexure-D and examine only the dispute relating to construction put-up by respondent No.4 without securing permission from respondent No.3.

¶43

SD/JUDGE

¶44

JTR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

Basappa S/O Bharamappa Airani v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basappa S/O Bharamappa Airani 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.Dayanandachar S/O Purvachar Poojar Vs Vishwakarma Samaj Vikas Sansthe

Sri. Nagappa Vs Smt. Lalita

Shri Vijay S/O Basavant Chougule Vs Smt. Akshata W/O Vijay Chougule

Kariyappa @ Kareppa S/O Ningappa Meti Vs Somaraya S/O Kenchappa Meti

Smt.Pushpa W/O Mahadev Kinagi Vs Shri.Ashok Nagappa Sulebhavi

Shri Shankar S/O Maruti Jambagi Vs Karnataka Co-Operative Society Ltd. Harugeri