Allowed

Yellappa Halagekar v. the Municipal Commissioner

Karnataka HC4 Jul 2024WP/101090/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner sought issuance of writ to direct the respondent authority to execute a sale deed by accepting the balance sale consideration. The Court, hearing the preliminary hearing, directed the respondent authority to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed. The respondent authority shall consider the representation dated 23.01.2017 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

Yellappa Halagekar Vs the Municipal Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:9125 WP No. 101090 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 101090 OF 2017 (LB-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

YELLAPPA HALAGEKAR, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. 302/A LAXMI NAGAR, HINDALGA BELAGAVI.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. ANAND R. KOLLI, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, CITY CORPORATION, BELAGAVI.

¶11

…RESPONDENT

¶12

Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY SRI. BHUSHAN B. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE A SALE DEED IN RESPECT OF CITY SURVEY NO.5880 OF SECTOR NO.9 SITUATED AT MALMARUTI EXTENSION BELAGAVI BY ACCEPTING THE BALANCE SALE CONSIDERATION AND ETC.

¶15

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,

¶16

THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC-D:9125 WP No. 101090 of 2017

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The captioned petition is filed to issue a mandamus to respondent to consider petitioner’s representation dated 23.01.2017 and execute the sale deed by accepting balance sale consideration pertaining to the site No.1260, which was allotted to the petitioner on 03.09.1988.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶22

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent on instructions submits that, the authority will consider the representation in accordance with law.

¶23

The petitioner claims that, the respondentauthority have allotted a site on 03.09.1988 and have issued a property card on 12.08.1994. The petitioner contends that, part of sale consideration is paid and is willing to deposit the balance consideration. The petitioner is alleging that, inspite of repeated requests, his

¶24

NC: 2024:KHC-D:9125 WP No. 101090 of 2017

¶25

¶26

representation is not considered. Counsel for respondent submits that representation will be considered in

¶27

accordance with law.

¶28

In the light of the submission made by the

¶29

learned counsel for the respondent-authority, this Court passes the following:

¶30

ORDER

¶31

(i) The writ petition is allowed;

¶32

(ii) The respondent-authority shall consider the representation dated 23.01.2017 vide Annexure-C and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶33

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶34

SVH

¶35

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

Yellappa Halagekar v. the Municipal Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yellappa Halagekar v. the Municipal 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

The Chairman Vs Shanmukhappa S/O. Channappa Rudrabai

Shri.Ravindra S/O Sadanand Revanakar Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Shri. Jagadish Vs the State of Karnataka

Chinchali Mailardeva Devastan Vs the State of Karnataka

Fakirappa S/O Doddappa Kattimani Vs the Tahshildar

Basaveshwar Dev. Vs the State of Karnataka