Partly allowed

Dr. Chidanand v. Honble Secretary Vivek Bhasme

Karnataka HC2 Jul 2024WP/100557/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that disputed facts concerning encroachment and plot existence are for civil court adjudication, not writ jurisdiction. The writ petition was partly allowed, quashing a denial letter and directing the society to provide xerox copies of layout plans to enable the petitioner to seek remedies in civil court.

What did the court decide?

Impugned endorsement quashed; Respondent directed to furnish xerox copy of original and revised layout.

Dr. Chidanand Vs Honble Secretary Vivek Bhasme — Cooperative Societies | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

- 1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8968 WP No. 100557 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JULY, 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 100557 OF 2022 (GM-RES)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

DR. CHIDANAND S/O. SIDDANAGAUDA PATIL, AGE: 42 YEARS, R/O. MIG-11 MAHANTESH NAGAR, BELGAUM, REPRESENTED BY HIS PA HOLDER, MAHESH S/O. MADUKAR MUTGEKAR, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. #BHANDUR GALLI BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI-PIN-CODE

¶6

…PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SMT. SUNANDA P. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶10

HON’BLE SECRETARY, VIVEK BHASME GOVT. SERVANTS CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, VAIBHAV NAGAR EXTENSION.

¶11

R.S. MEHTRI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: CHAIRMAN, GOVT. SERVANTS, CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, VAIBHAV NAGAR EXTENSION.

¶12

SHRI. G.A. ALAGUNDAGI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: DIRECTOR, GOVT. SERVANTS CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, VAIBHAV NAGAR EXTENSION.

¶13

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8968 WP No. 100557 of 2022

¶14

SHRI. B.M. NIMBAL,

¶15

AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER, GOVT. SERVANTS CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., COMMERCIAL COMPLEX,

¶16

VAIBHAV NAGAR EXTENSION.

¶17

SHRI. M.H. MULLA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER, GOVT. SERVANTS CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, VAIBHAV NAGAR EXTENSION.

¶18

P.P. BADIGER, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER, GOVT. SERVANTS, CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, VAIBHAV NAGAR EXTENSION.

¶19

S.G. NAGANURI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER, GOVT. SERVANTS, CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, VAIBHAV NAGAR EXTENSION.

¶20

D.S. KINAGI,

¶21

AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER, GOVT. SERVANTS, CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, VAIBHAV NAGAR EXTENSION.

¶22

M.S. PATIL,

¶23

AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER, GOVT. SERVANTS, CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, VAIBHAV NAGAR EXTENSION.

¶24

S.S. CHARANTIMTH, AGE: , OCC: MEMBER, GOVT. SERVANTS, CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., COMMERCIAL COMPLEX,

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8968 WP No. 100557 of 2022

¶26

VAIBHAV NAGAR EXTENSION.

¶27

SMT. S.S. CHARANTIMTH, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER, GOVT. SERVANTS, CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, VAIBHAV NAGAR EXTENSION.

¶28

SMT. RANJANA S. PATIL, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER, GOVT. SERVANTS, CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, VAIBHAV NAGAR EXTENSION.

¶29

SMT. PADMAVATI BADIGER,

¶30

AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER, GOVT. SERVANTS, CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, VAIBHAV NAGAR EXTENSION.

¶31

…respondents

¶32

(BY SRI. A.B. NESARGI, ADV. FOR R1 & R2; R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9, R10, R11, R12 & R13 ARE SERVED)

¶33

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION; ISSUE A DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASHING THE REPLY LETTER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-J DATED ON 08/09/2021; ISSUE THE DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO CONSIDER MY LETTER WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-H.

¶34

THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8968 WP No. 100557 of 2022

¶36

ORDER

¶37

The petitioner is assailing the endorsement dated 08.09.2021 issued by respondent No.1-society. The petitioner in the petition has also sought relief of mandamus against respondent No.1 to consider his letter vide Annexure-H.

¶38

Heard learned counsel appearing for petitioner and respondent No.1.

¶39

The petitioner claims that his father was a Government Servant and he was member of respondent No.1/Society. The society has allotted a plot bearing No.91 in Sy.No.14/2. Petitioner further claims that his father had paid additional charge. The petitioner contends that after purchase of the said plot, respondent No.1/Society has issued a certificate indicating that the plot is part and parcel of the converted and approved layout. The petitioner contends that respondent No.1 is not furnishing the certified copy of revised layout plan. On the contrary, when a request was made, respondent No.1 has issued an endorsement vide Annexure-J indicating that plot bearing No.91 is not in existence

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8968 WP No. 100557 of 2022

¶41

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/ Society on instruction submits that the owner of plot No.93 has encroached over plot No.92 and in turn, the owner of plot No.92 has encroached and constructed a residential house in plot No.91, which was originally allotted to petitioner's father. He would also point out that the Housing Society cannot issue a certified copy of revised layout. At the most, they can furnish a Xerox copy of revised layout.

¶42

If these significant details are looked into, it appears that petitioner’s property bearing plot No.91 is encroached upon and a residential house is constructed by the owner of plot No.92. These disputed facts cannot be gone into in a writ jurisdiction.

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly accepts the statement made by respondent No.1/Society. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit before this Court that if a Xerox copy of revised and original layouts is furnished to petitioner, petitioner will be able to secure certified copies from the competent authority.

¶44

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8968 WP No. 100557 of 2022

¶45

Having examined the controversy in the case on hand, this Court is of the view that petitioner has to be relegated to seek remedy before the competent Civil Court. Petitioner, however, to approach the Civil Court, needs approved and consequent revised layout secured by respondent No.1/Housing Society. If Xerox copies are furnished, petitioner will be better placed to secure certified copies. For the foregoing reasons, this Court passes the following:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

i) Writ petition is allowed in part.

¶48

ii) The impugned endorsement dated 08.09.2021 is hereby quashed.

¶49

iii) Respondent No.1 is hereby directed to furnish the Xerox copy of original and revised layout.

¶50

iv) It is open for petitioner to seek appropriate remedy before the competent Civil Court.

¶51

¶52

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

Dr. Chidanand v. Honble Secretary Vivek Bhasme

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Chidanand v. Honble Secretary Vivek Bhasme

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

Raghavendra S/O. Ramachandra Vs Hubli-Dharwad Municipal

Sri.P.P.Hiremath Vs the Hubballi-Dharwad Municipal Corporaton

Chandramouli S/O. Jayadeviah Swamy Vs the Assistant Commissioner

S.M. Basava S/O Revansidda Sharma Vs State of Karnataka

Abubakkar.M.Beside Nice Bakery Vs the Human Resource Management

Sri.Iliyas Abdul Gafoor Kewka Vs the State of Karnataka