Dismissed

Smt Lalitha Srinivasa Gowda v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC11 Apr 2023WP/13175/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed to prevent dispossession from a shop constructed as temporary structure on rajakaluve. Court held structure illegal, petitioner entitled only to return security deposit and liberty to participate in future auctions. Petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Security deposit to be returned within eight weeks; liberty reserved for petitioner to participate in future auction proceedings.

Smt Lalitha Srinivasa Gowda Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 13175 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 13175 OF 2017 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. LALITHA. SRINIVASA GOWDA, W/O SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT # 364, MANJUNATHA TEMPLE ROAD, SBM COLONY, BANGALORE - 560 050.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SHARATH S. GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by NARAYANAPPA LAKSHMAMMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER, BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, NR SQUARE, BANGALORE - 560 002.

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (MARKETS), BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, NR SQUARE, BANGALORE - 560 002.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. N. R. JAGADEESWARA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

¶17

THIS W.P., IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INIDA PRAYING TO DIRECT RESPONDENTS NOT TO DISPOSSESS THE PETITIONER FROM THE PETITION SCHEDULE

¶18

¶19

WP No. 13175 of 2017

¶20

PROPERTY WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND ETC.,

¶21

THIS W.P., COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶24

a. Directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the petition schedule property without following the due process of law.

¶25

b. Directing the respondent to provide alternative shop premises.

¶26

c. Grant such other relief that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the matter in the interest of justice and equity.

¶27

The claim of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a lessee of a shop constructed by the respondent Corporation. The respondent Corporation now proposes to demolish the said shopping complex and evict the petitioner from the said premises. In that background, the aforesaid reliefs are sought for inasmuch as it is contended that of the said construction is demolished an alternate shop be made available to the petitioner.

¶28

Sri. N.R.Jagadeeshwar, learned counsel for the respondents submits that a temporary structure had been

¶29

¶30

WP No. 13175 of 2017

¶31

constructed on the rajakaluve by inadvertence, and realizing the same, the BBMP is now wanting to demolish the same so as to clear the encroachment, if any, on the rajakaluve. It is in that background, the petitioner has been asked to vacate the premises being a licencee, he cannot claim any rights or interests in the property.

¶32

Insofar as the claim of the petitioner for an alternative shop is concerned, he submits that the petitioner can always participate in any auction held by the Corporation and if successful, the petitioner would be allotted the said shop. There is no provision provided under the BBMP Act for allotment of an alternative shop on account of demolition.

¶33

Heard Sri. Sharath S. Gowda, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. N.R.Jagadeeshwara, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and perused papers.

¶34

The submission is that a temporary structure had been built on the rajakauve, all construction temporary or otherwise has been directed to be removed by this Court as also by the National Green Tribunal in various matters.

¶35

¶36

WP No. 13175 of 2017

¶37

In furtherance thereof, the said temporary structure is sought to be removed. The said temporary structure can be said to be illegal and unauthorized, and the petitioner cannot claim any equity in his favour as regards such a construction.

¶38

The construction on a rajakaluve is sought to be removed by the Corporation, the same being required to be removed, the petitioner cannot claim an enquiry. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to participate in any auction proceedings to be held by the Corporation.

¶39

The security deposit, if any, made by the petitioner is directed to be returned to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶40

The petition stands dismissed .

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

GJM

¶43

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32

Smt Lalitha Srinivasa Gowda v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Lalitha Srinivasa Gowda v. the 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

Sri. T. Venkateshwara Rao Vs Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

S R Amaresh Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.S.P.Anne Gowda Vs the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Mr. Zabi Ulla Vs the Commissioner

Smt Shamshad Begum Vs the State of Karnataka

V Kirshna Murthy Vs Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike