Disposed

Shri Santosh Laxman Raikar v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC17 Sept 2024WP/104750/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a demolition notice issued by Karwar Municipal Council, allegedly in non-compliance of an earlier writ appeal direction. The court noted objections were filed by both sides and disposed of the petition directing the authority to consider the objections of both parties and proceed in accordance with law per the writ appeal observations.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with direction to respondent No.1 to consider statements of objections of both parties and take decision on demolition in accordance with law as per Writ Appeal No.100112/2018.

Shri Santosh Laxman Raikar Vs the Commissioner — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13186 WP No. 104750 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶3

DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 104750 OF 2024 (LB-UC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHRI SANTOSH LAXMAN RAIKAR, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. ANGADIWADA KADWAD,

¶10

KARWAR TALUK, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT-581339.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. HARSHAWARDHAN M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER, KARWAR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, KARWAR, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581301.

¶15

SANDEEP S/O. RAMANAND GOKARNAKAR, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. NEAR ITI COLLEGE, NANDANGADDA, KARWAR, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA -581304.

¶16

SAROJA HANGARAKI

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. S.V. YAJI, ADV. FOR R1;

¶19

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARANTAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶20

SRI. GIRISH A. YADAWAD, ADV. FOR R2)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE TO QUASH THE DEMOLITION NOTICE BEG. NO. NASAKAA.ANADHIKRUTHAKATTADA:50:2024-25 DATED 05/08/2024 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-M IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING , THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13186 WP No. 104750 of 2024

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.2.

¶27

In the present writ petition challenge is made questioning the notice dated 05.08.2024 and so the same is in terms of a notice but there is a direction to remove the building constructed as against the plan within seven days. Hence, the petitioner has approached before this Court.

¶28

The petitioner also brought to notice of this Court that this order has been passed without in compliance of order passed in Writ Appeal No.100112/2018 dated 04.09.2018. He also brought to the notice of this Court the discussion made in paragraph Nos.8 and 9 though the notice was given that is similar form of final order.

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13186 WP No. 104750 of 2024

¶30

The counsel appearing for the respondent No.2

¶31

is also party to the earlier proceeding and contend that the manner in which the said notice was issued for demolish, is nothing but without giving any opportunity to the both parties passed such an order and the same is also requires to be quashed.

¶32

However, the counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 referring the notice contend that, that is only an opportunity is given to file statement of objections and opportunity will be given to both of them and thereafter only going to consider the same in accordance with law and also in terms of the direction given by this Court in Writ Appeal No.100112/2018 and the same is only a notice.

¶33

In view of the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 as well as the counsel for the petitioner also not disputes the fact that they have filed the statement of objections to the Annexure-M dated 05.08.2024. When such being the case and when such submission is made by the respondent

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13186 WP No. 104750 of 2024

¶35

No.1 that they are going to consider the statement of objections filed by the petitioner as well as the respondent No.2 and by giving an opportunity to both of them take decision on the issue of demolition that too in terms of the direction given by this Court in the Writ Appeal No.100112/2018, the present writ petition is disposed off with a direction to consider the objections of both and proceed in accordance with law as per the observations of writ appeal.

¶36

Both the petitioner as well as the respondent

¶37

No.2 are directed to appear before the respondent No.1 on

¶38

15.10.2024 without expecting any notice.

¶39

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶40

SMM CT-MCK

¶41

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

Shri Santosh Laxman Raikar v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Santosh Laxman Raikar v. the 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

Shri Balu S/O Venku Sawant Vs Shri Dinkar S/O Gopal Chavan

Rajansa S/O Shrikanth Patil Vs Mohansa @ Mohan S/O Shrikanth Patil

M/S. Sri Laxmi Balaji Industries Vs M/S. Lakshmi Venkateshwar

Smt. Bhagirathi W/O Baburao Balulad Vs Pandugouda S/Ov Enkanagouda Patil

Sandeep S/O Sanjivappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Sadanand S/O Shekhar Khot Vs Smt. Saroja W/O Sadanand Khot