Allowed

Smt. Puttathyamma v. the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal

Karnataka HC2 Mar 2023WP/59522/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging confirmation orders relating to property construction. The Court held that response officers cannot demand a sanctioned plan from the petitioner when the documents are within the Corporation's custody. The impugned orders were quashed, with liberty reserved for further proceedings upon production of annexures and a hearing.

What did the court decide?

The confirmation order dated 08-01-2016 issued by respondent No. 3 and the order dated 28-10-2016 passed by respondent No. 1 are quashed. Liberty is reserved for respondent No. 3 to consider the notic

Smt. Puttathyamma Vs the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 59522 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.59522 OF 2016 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. PUTTATHYAMMA W/O. PARAMASHIVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.312, WARD NO.39, TEACHER'S LAYOUT, NAGARBHAVI 1ST STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 072.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI N.P. SINGRI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by POORNIMA SHIVANNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL M.S. BUILDING, VIDHAN VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE MAHANAGAR PALIKE, N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶15

¶16

WP No. 59522 of 2016

¶17

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CHANDRA LAYOUT SUB-DIVISION, BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, 4TH MAIN ROAD, M.C. BADAVANE, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 040.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI NITHYANANDA K.R, A.G.A., FOR R-1, AND SRI K.V. MOHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE, FOR R-2 AND R-3)

¶20

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 28.10.2016 PASSED IN APPEAL NO.77/2016 BY RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-L, AND ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the

¶25

following reliefs:

¶26

"a. Issue a writ or direction, in the nature of certiorari, quashing the judgment and order dated 28-10-2016 passed in Appeal No.77/2016, by respondent No.1, vide Annexure-L.

¶27

b. Issue a writ or direction, in the nature of certiorari, quashing the confirmation order bearing No.SA.KA.NI.AA/CH.UA.VI/C.O./20/ 2015-16 dated 08/01/2016, passed by respondent No.3 vide Annexure-K."

¶28

¶29

WP No. 59522 of 2016

¶30

The grievance of the petitioner is that, respondent No.2 itself having granted a sanction plan to the petitioner for construction of the building on her property and merely, because the petitioner has not produced the same, the notice issued under Section 321(1) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, (for short, 'the Act') confirming an order under Section 321(B) of the Act is illegal. The contention is that, since the plan has been sanctioned, same ought to have been taken into consideration by the respondents and further more, same ought to have been taken into consideration by respondent No.1 before passing the impugned order dated 28-10-2016.

¶31

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that notice

¶32

had been issued by respondent No.3-Assistant Executive Engineer and respondent No.3 did not have the plan in his possession.

¶33

Heard.

¶34

¶35

WP No. 59522 of 2016

¶36

I am of the considered opinion that the plan has been sanctioned by the Corporation. Each Officer cannot operate in an island. If at all, respondent No.3 had any doubt as regards the plan having been sanctioned, the same ought to have been verified within the Office of the Corporation. The Joint Director, Town Planning, having issued the plan at Annexure-C, it was but required for the respondent No.3 to make necessary enquiries rather than calling upon the petitioner to produce the plan sanctioned.

¶37

Authorities like respondent Nos.2 and 3, who are in custody of the documents pertaining to plan sanction, etc. cannot insist on same to be produced by the petitioner. The petitioner may or may not have the said documents in her possession and the custody of the said documents is with the Corporation.

¶38

The plan having been now produced by the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned orders cannot be sustained. As such, I pass the following

¶39

¶40

WP No. 59522 of 2016

¶41

ORDER

¶42

i. Writ petition is allowed ;

¶43

ii. Confirmation order bearing No.SA.KA.NI.AA/CH.UA.VI/ C.O.20/2015-16 dated 8-1-2016 issued by respondent No.3 at Annexure-K is quashed. Consequently, a certiorari is issued. The order dated 28-10-2016 in Appeal No.77 of 2016 passed by respondent No.1 at Annexure-L is also quashed, and

¶44

iii. Liberty is, however, reserved to respondent No.3 to consider the notice issued under Section 321(1) of the Act with reference to the sanction plan produced Annexure-C and the documents produced along with the present petition, after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, by issuing notice to the petitioner by fixing a necessary date.

¶45

KVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

Smt. Puttathyamma v. the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Puttathyamma v. the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal

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

Smt Krishnamma Vs the Joint Registrar of

K.T.Muinivenkata Reddy Vs State by Its

L. K. Suresh Babu Vs the State of Karnataka

T Amarsingh Vs the Chief Adminsitrative Officer

Sri Tarun Kumar Gupta Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Mrs Renuka Manghnani Vs State of Karnataka