Allowed

Smt. Vasanti Siddappa Pujer, v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC4 Oct 2023WP/101892/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed plea that impugned endorsement rejecting modification of construction plan was arbitrary and violated natural justice. Set aside order directing respondents to call for title documents.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside. Respondents directed to notify petitioner, call for title documents, and decide application in accordance with law after securing materials.

Smt. Vasanti Siddappa Pujer, Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11744 WP No. 101892 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 101892 OF 2016 (LB-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. VASANTI SIDDAPPA PUJER, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: SAMPIGE ROAD, SADASHIV NAGAR, BELAGAVI.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI PRASHANT F. GOWDAR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI.

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER, CITY CORPORATION OF BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI.

¶15

MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER, BELAGAUM URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ASHOK NAGAR, BELAGAVI.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI P.N. HATTI, HCGP FOR R1; SRI ARAVIND D. KULKARNI, ADV. FOR R2; SRI M.A. HULYAL, ADV. FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECT TO RESPONDENT NO.1 TO WITHDRAW HIS ORDER DATED:03.07.2009, VIDE ANNEXURE-N BEARING NO. R.B.L.A.C.R. 29/2008-09 AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED:05.12.2015, VIDE ANNEXURE-N1; ISSUES WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE

¶18

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11744 WP No. 101892 of 2016

¶19

RESPONDENT NO.2 TO APPROVE THE MODIFIED PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED:15.07.2015, VIDE ANNEXURE-L.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Captioned petition is filed seeking writ of certiorari to quash the endorsement issued by respondent No.2 dated 01.08.2015 vide Annexure-M thereby rejecting the petitioner’s application seeking modification of the approved plan for construction and consequently petitioner is seeking mandamus against respondent No.2 to sanction modified plan.

¶23

Heard the counsel for petitioner and the learned

¶24

standing counsel appearing for respondent No.2-Corporation and also the learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1.

¶25

Petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of property bearing R.S.No.219/2, CTS No.5710/A. Respondent No.2-Corporation placing reliance on circular issued by respondent No.1-Deputy commissioner has rejected the application filed by the petitioner seeking modification of the approved plan.

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11744 WP No. 101892 of 2016

¶27

On examining the impugned endorsement vide Annexure-M this Court is more than satisfied that there is absolutely no application of mind. The order is as cryptic as it could be. Respondent No.2-Corporation has not indicated as to how the communication sent by respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner is applicable to the present petitioner’s property also. The least respondent No.2 could have done is called upon the petitioner to furnish title documents. Such recourse is not adopted. The impugned order vide Annexure-M is also in violation of principles of natural justice. Essentially, natural justice requires that a person receives a fair and unbiased hearing before a decision is made that will negatively affect the party. The three main requirements of natural justice that must be made in every case are: adequate notice, fair hearing and no bias.

¶28

On examining the records, what can be gathered is respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner having taken cognisance of land grabbers has sent a communication to respondent No.2-Corporation to exercise caution and also take action against the persons squatting over government plots. The said communication cannot be universally applied to all the

¶29

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11744 WP No. 101892 of 2016

¶30

cases. Even if in the communication sent by the Deputy Commissioner, there is reference of CTS No.5710, which totally measures 5 acres, the impugned order could not have been passed without holding an enquiry. Therefore, I am of the view that the captioned petition succeeds. The impugned endorsement being cryptic and arbitrary is liable to be set aside by this Court. Hence, the following:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶33

ii) The impugned order passed by respondent No.2

¶34

vide Annexure-M is hereby set aside.

¶35

iii) Respondent No.2 shall notify the petitioner and

¶36

call upon him to furnish the title documents and all relevant documents relating to petition property.

¶37

iv) After securing all materials, respondent No.2 shall decide the application in accordance with law.

¶38

v) In the event respondent No.2 after enquiry finds that the petitioner is absolute owner of the suit property, respondent No.2 shall further proceed

¶39

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11744 WP No. 101892 of 2016

¶40

¶41

to pass appropriate orders on an application filed seeking modification of plan in accordance with law.

¶42

vi) In view of disposal of the petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive

¶43

for consideration and are disposed of accordingly.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

YAN, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63

Smt. Vasanti Siddappa Pujer, v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Vasanti Siddappa Pujer, v. the Deputy Commissioner

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

Savitri Kom Bhairveshwar Bhat Vs Krishna Damodhar Prabhu Since Deceased by His Lrs

Shankarrao Govindrao Bhandurge Vs the Commissioner, Belgaum

Umakant Somashekhar Kshatriya Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Anand S/O Mahadevappa Kanashetti Vs Smt. Vinutha W/O Anand Kanashetti

Shankar S/O. Shivappa Belgavi Vs the Commissioner

Sri.Ninganagouda S/O Mallanagouda Naikar @ Kadakol Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer