The High Court allowed a writ petition quashing an order stopping construction work. The court held that without evidence of plan violation, the respondent lacked authority to halt work approved in 2020 and ordered in 2023.
Annexure-E dated 29.07.2024 stopping work is quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
WRIT PETITION NO. 104752 OF 2024 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O. BASAVARAJ KARAJAGI, AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/AT. PATISALA ONI, UNKAL, HUBBALLI-580001.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
HUBLI DHARWAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580001, BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M.L. VANTI, ADVOCATE)
GIRIJA A BYAHATTI
Location: HIGH COURT OF KARANTAKA DHARWAD BENCH
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 29.07.2024 BEARING NO.A.V.2024-25/1631 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E ISSUED BY RESPONDENT; ISSUE SUCH OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT INCLUDING AN ORDER AS TO COSTS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
Heard the petitioner’s counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondent.
9 meter road. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present petition is filed before this Court.
terms and conditions. Now the petitioner is estopped from filing the present petition. On this ground alone, the petition deserves to be dismissed. The counsel also relies upon Annexure-R1. It is also contended that as per the general regulation 6.3, the respondent authority can modify the plan in the interest of public and also extracted the terms and conditions applicable for sub-division of land for residential use and also produced the document vide Annexure-R2 to R4, i.e., copies of the complaints/representations given by the public. It is also contended that the intended modification is in the interest of the public at large and it will not adversely affect and further, the petitioner will also get access to the main road and produced Annexure-R5 and R6 photographs evidencing the said topography of the area and also contend that the writ petition is premature as the respondent has taken decision on the basis of the complaint and only Annexure-E is issued for stopping of the work and final decision was not taken and hence petition is liable to be dismissed.
that the work is undertaken as per the work order issued by the respondent and work order was issued in the year 2023. The road is also formed and 95% work is also completed. When there is no any violation and in terms of the work order issued by the respondent only, the work has been carried out. When such being the case, based on the complaints at Annexures-R2 to R4, the respondent cannot stop the work and nothing is placed on record indicating any violation by the petitioner. Only reference is made while stopping the work i.e., complaint of public dated 16.08.2023 and 25.04.2024. When there was no any violation in the work carried out by the petitioner, question of stopping of the work does not arise. Even while approving the plan also decision was taken by the Commissioner and work order was issued in accordance with law. When such being the case, the contention of the respondent that as per condition No.4, while conducting spot inspection if any suggestion is made for change, the same has to be implemented, cannot be accepted. When the work order was implemented as per the work order issued by the respondent, question of stopping
the work does not arise. Hence, Annexure-E is requires to be quashed.
following :
ORDER
Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE
NAA CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondent authority could quash the approved construction plan and stop work based solely on public complaints without established violation of sanctioned plans.
Whether stopping developmental work sans violation of the sanctioned plan is arbitrary and violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
Smt. Vijayalakshmi W/O. Basavaraj Karajagi
Hubli Dharwad Urban Development Authority
H.P.桑德斯
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
