Allowed

Sri C B Puneeth v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC6 Jul 2023WP/2100/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged a Deputy Commissioner order directing the City Municipal Council to act against the petitioner for alleged plan deviation. The Court held the Deputy Commissioner lacked authority under Section 306 and quashed the order, while clarifying the Municipal Council's inherent power to initiate proceedings for encroachment or violations.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 18-12-2015 (Annexure-K) is quashed and set aside. The City Municipal Council is directed to proceed against the petitioner via notice regarding deviation or encroachment in ac

Sri C B Puneeth Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:23325 WP No. 2100 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.2100 OF 2016 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI C.B. PUNEETH S/O R. BOREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI N. SHARATH KUMAR S/O LATE NANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.1705, 9^TH CROSS CHAMUNDESHWARI NAGAR MANDYA CITY MANDYA.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI M. N. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL, FOR SRI H. N. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA-571 401.

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL MANDYA CITY MANDYA-571 401.

¶15

SRI SHEKAR C. P. S/O C.B. PUTTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESIDENT OF CHIKKA MANDYA VILLAGE MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571 401.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:23325 WP No. 2100 of 2016

¶18

SRI JAIPRAKASH S/O D. PUTTALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS RESIDENT OF HALAHALLI MANDYA CITY MANDYA-571 401.

¶19

SRI BHASKAR S/O MANCHAIAH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS RESIDENT OF HOSAHALLI MANDYA CITY MANDYA-571 401.

¶20

SRI GIRISH S/O RAME GOWDA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESIDENT OF 6^TH CROSS CHAMUNDESHWARI NAGAR MANDYA CITY MANDYA-571 401.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI SANTHOSH KUMAR M.B., H.C.G.P., FOR R-1 SRI H. C. SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE, FOR R-2, AND R-3 TO R-5 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶23

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 18-12-2015 PASSED BY RESPONDENT No.1 IN CASE NO. M.A.07/2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-K, AND ETC.

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

¶27

NC: 2023:KHC:23325 WP No. 2100 of 2016

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶30

The petitioner, who is the owner of the immovable property bearing No.D-4/2046/1558 measuring 12.20 x 21.32 meters situated at Chamundeshwarinagara, Mandya, is aggrieved of the impugned order dated 18-12-2015, at Annexure-'K' passed by the respondentDeputy Commissioner, Mandya in appeal bearing number M.A. No.7 of 2014 filed by respondent Nos.3 to 6 herein.

¶31

Sri M.R. Rajagopal, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that respondent Nos.3 to 6, who are complaining against the petitioner regarding the deviation in the constructions made by the petitioner, could not have filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner invoking Section 306 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (for short, 'Act, 1964'). Even otherwise, the Deputy Commissioner could not have given a direction to the respondent-City Municipal Council, Mandya, to initiate action against the petitioner.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2023:KHC:23325 WP No. 2100 of 2016

¶34

Per contra , Sri H.C. Shivaramu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-City Municipal Council, Mandya, submits that notice was in fact given by the City Municipal Council to the petitioner on 21-5-2014, at Annexure-'C' on the complaint given by respondent Nos.3 to 6 herein. Even before action could be taken by the City Municipal Council, the contesting respondents approached the Deputy Commissioner. In the meanwhile, the petitioner also filed an Original Suit No.544 of 2014 before the Principal Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandya, against the Commissioner of the City Municipal Council seeking a decree of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants and its agents, servants not to interfere with the construction work carried out by the plaintiff in the suit schedule property.

¶35

Learned counsel would, therefore, submit that the City Municipal Council is empowered under the provisions of the Act, 1964, to take action against any violators for deviation of the sanctioned plan, or violation of the

¶36

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:23325 WP No. 2100 of 2016

¶37

building bye-laws of the City Municipal Council. Provision

¶38

is also available under the Act, 1964, to take action against any person who encroaches a public road, street, or drains maintained by the City Municipal Council. Allegation against the petitioner is that he has violated the sanctioned plan and has encroached a portion of the public road. However, as rightly submitted by the learned senior counsel, although notice was issued by the City Municipal Council in the year, 2014, at Annexure-'C', nevertheless, since the contesting respondents approached the Deputy Commissioner invoking Section 306 of the Act, 1964, the Deputy Commissioner issued a direction to the City Municipal Council to take action in accordance with law. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner could not have approached the Civil Court to seek an injunction against the statutory body which is empowered to take action in terms of the provisions of the enactment.

¶39

Having heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent-City

¶40

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:23325 WP No. 2100 of 2016

¶41

Municipal Council and on perusal of the petition papers, this Court is of the considered opinion that dehors the direction issued by the Deputy Commissioner in the impugned order, the respondent-City Municipal Council is entitled to take action against the petitioner. That power being sacrosanct, the petitioner could not have approached the Civil Court to seek a restraint order against the Municipality. The petitioner is not making any allegation against the City Municipal Council that City Municipal Council is trying to encroach upon his property. That being the position, the City Municipal Council may move the Civil Court and get the suit dismissed.

¶42

For the reasons stated above, since this Court has accepted the submission made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Deputy Commissioner could not have issued a direction invoking Section 306 of the Act, 1964, the petition is allowed . The impugned order at Annexure-'K' dated 18-12-2015 is hereby quashed and set aside. However, it is open for the

¶43

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:23325 WP No. 2100 of 2016

¶44

Commissioner of the City Municipal Council to proceed against the petitioner by issuing notice, if it is of the opinion that the petitioner has deviated from the sanctioned plan or that the petitioner has encroached upon a public road, street, or drains maintained by the City Municipal Council. Action can be taken against the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶45

Ordered accordingly.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

KVK

Sri C B Puneeth v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri C B Puneeth 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Rudra Pratap Singh Vs M/S Siddharta Resorts and Foods

Sri B Madhusudan Rao Vs the Commissioner

Sri. Giridhar Vs M/S. Sowparnika Projects and

Smt Zabina Taj Vs the Commissioner

Smt N Hemalatha Vs the State of Karnataka

P. Hemaraju Vs the State of Karnataka