Allowed

K Narasimha Kini v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC30 May 2023WP/2504/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the endorsement by the Panchayati Development Officer requiring land conversion to erect a compound wall. The court held that Section 64 of the Act applies only to new buildings, not compound walls. Consequently, the endorsement was quashed and the officer directed to grant permission.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the endorsement dated 16.01.2023; directing the 2nd Respondent to consider the application for compound wall permission within six weeks.

K Narasimha Kini Vs the State of Karnataka — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 2504 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF MAY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.2504 OF 2023 (LB-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

K NARASIMHA KINI S/O LATE VISHWANATHA KINI AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT NO.2/20 NANDA GOKULA KUTHYARU VILLAGE KAUP TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT 574106

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR S., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ M S BUILDING BENGALURU 560001 REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶14

Digitally signed by NIRMALADEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER KUTHYARU VILLAGE PANCHAYATH KALATHUR SOUTH POST KAUP TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT 574106

¶16

JAGADEESH ARASA S/O SRI RAMAKRISHNA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT ARASARA MANE IRANDADY KUTHYAR POST 574116 KAUP TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT

¶17

KUTHYARU VILLAGE PANCHAYATH KALATHUR SOUTH POST KAUP TALUK

¶18

¶19

WP No. 2504 of 2023

¶20

UDUPI DISTRICT 574106 REP BY ITS PRESIDENT

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. NITHYANANDA K R, AGA FOR R1 SRI ASHOK D NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R4)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 16/01/2023 VIDE LETTER NO.189/2022-23 ISSUED BY THE DR-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Heard Sri Rajashekar S., learned counsel for the Petitioner

¶27

and learned AGA for respondent No.1.

¶28

The present Writ Petition is filed seeking for the

¶29

following reliefs:

¶30

"i) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the endorsement dated 16.01.2023 vide letter No.189/2022-13, issued by the 2^nd Respondent, vide Annexure-A.

¶31

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus, directing the Respondent Nos.2 and 4 to accord permission to fence the property bearing Sy.No.228/6, pursuant to the submission of his application vide Annexure-V;

¶32

iii) Issue any other writ, order or direction and grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court as this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper under the

¶33

¶34

WP No. 2504 of 2023

¶35

circumstances of this case, in the interest of justice."

¶36

It is the case of the Petitioner that he is the owner of property bearing Sy.No.228/6 situated at Kuthyaru village, Kaup Taluk, Udupi District measuring 90 cents and he was erecting a compound wall in the said property. During such time, he was issued with a notice dated 26.09.2022 (AnnexureP to the Writ Petition), which was replied by him vide reply dated 06.10.2022 (Annexure-Q to the Writ Petition). It is the further case of the Petitioner that he made an Application dated 7.12.2022 (Annexure-V to the Writ Petition) wherein he sought permission from Respondent No.2 for putting up a compound wall. Respondent No.2 issued an endorsement dated 16.01.2023 whereunder he notified the Petitioner to get the property converted in order to consider the request for putting up a compound wall and Section 64 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') has been relied upon for the said purpose. Being aggrieved, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶37

Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that Section 64 of the Act is with regard to erection of buildings and

¶38

¶39

WP No. 2504 of 2023

¶40

not compound wall. That the Petitioner is only constructing a compound wall and hence, Section 64 of the Act would not be attracted. He further submits that the Petitioner is merely constructing a compound wall so as to safeguard his property and for the said purpose, question of getting the land converted does not arise.

¶41

I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. The question that arise for considered is 'whether the relief sought for in the Writ Petition is liable to be granted?'

¶42

Admittedly, the Petitioner is putting up construction of a compound wall as is forthcoming from the photographs produced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner along with a memo dated 30.05.2020. The request has been made by the Petitioner to Respondent No.2 for grant of permission to put up a compound wall.

¶43

Section 64(1) of the Act states as follows:

¶44

"64. Regulation of the erection of buildings.-

¶45

5 - WP No. 2504 of 2023

¶46

(1) Subject to such rules as may be prescribed, no person shall erect any building or alter or add to any existing building or erect advertisement hoarding or set up mobile towers a top or alongside or in any vacant space within the premises or reconstruct any building without the written permission of the Grama Panchayat. The permission may be granted on payment of such fees as may be specified by bye-laws."

¶47

It is clear from the aforementioned that, Section 64

¶48

of the Act would attract only if a new building is sought to be constructed and would not arise to consider the request made by the Petitioner. Hence, the question framed for consideration is answered in the affirmative and is liable to be granted.

¶49

In view of the aforementioned, I proceed to pass the following:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

i. Writ Petition is allowed.

¶52

ii. Endorsement bearing No.189/2022-13 dated 16.01.2023 issued by Respondent No.2 (Annexure-A to the Writ Petition) is quashed.

¶53

iii. Respondent No.2 shall consider the request of the Petitioner dated 7.12.2022 (Annexure-V to the Writ

¶54

¶55

WP No. 2504 of 2023

¶56

Petition), as expeditiously as possible, in any event, within an outer limit of six weeks from the date of

¶57

receipt of a copy of this order.

No costs.

SD/JUDGE

List No.: 38 Sl No.: 13

K Narasimha Kini v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Narasimha Kini 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

Shri.v.Shashidhar Vs the State of Karnataka by

Sri Kariyappa @ Karigowda Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. G.S. Puttegowda Vs the Secretary

Shashikanth B Jogi Vs Municipal Commissioner

Sri. B. Shankar Deve Gowda Vs the Panchayath Development Officer

M/S Harohalli Land Limited Liability Partnership Vs Kanakapura Planning Authority