Allowed

Smt.Saroja D/O Late Yellusa Bhakale v. the Director

Karnataka HC2 Apr 2024WP/108199/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed writ petition partially, setting aside an endorsement denying building permission. Court directed respondents to reconsider the application due to pendency of civil suits and temporary injunction affecting property title, requiring dismissal of previous order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned endorsement set aside; respondents directed to reconsider petitioners' building permission application considering temporary injunction obtained.

Smt.Saroja D/O Late Yellusa Bhakale Vs the Director — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

- 1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6061 WP No. 108199 of 2018

¶2

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

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 108199 OF 2018 (LB-RES)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

SMT. SAROJA

¶6

D/O. LATE YELLUSA BHAKALE, AGE: 51 YEARS,

¶7

RAKESH S/O. LATE YELLUSA BHAKALE, AGE: 46 YEARS,

¶8

MANJUNATH S/O. LATE YELLUSA BHAKALE, AGE: 43 YEARS,

¶9

RAJANNA S/O. LATE YELLUSA BHAKALE, AGE: 51 YEARS, ALL ARE R/O: WARD NO.4, BHAGYA NAGAR, KOPPAL, TQ & DIST: KOPPAL.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed byCHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2024.04.06 12:56:29 +0530

¶12

(BY SRI M.V. HIREMATH & SRI V.S. KALSURMATH, ADVOCATES)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE CHIEF OFFICER, TOWN PANCHAYATH, BHAGYA NAGAR, KOPPAL.

¶15

THE SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT, BHAGYA NAGAR, KOPPAL.

¶16

THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, GRAM PANCHAYAT, BHAGYA NAGAR, KOPPAL.

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6061 WP No. 108199 of 2018

¶18

SHRINIVAS S/O. BASAPPA HYATI, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,

¶19

GYANAPPA S/O. BASAPPA HYATI, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,

¶20

KRISHNA S/O. HANAMANTHA, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,

¶21

LAKSHMANNA S/O. ANALAPPA SALAMANI, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: WEAVER,

¶22

DYAMANNA S/O. DEVAPPA UPPAR, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: ELECTRICAL WORK,

¶23

PANDURANGANAGOUDA S/O. MELAGIRIGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 76 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, ALL ARE R/O: WARD NO.4, BHAGYA NAGAR, KOPPAL, TQ & DIST: KOPPAL.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADV. FOR R1; R2 TO R9 DISPENSED WITH)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED:14.12.2017, BEARING NO.Pa.Pam.Ba/Ka.Pa.Na/2017-18 VIDE ANNEXURE-N ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1; ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED:02.11.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-M.

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC-D:6061 WP No. 108199 of 2018

¶30

ORDER

¶31

This writ petition is filed seeking for following reliefs:

¶32

i. Issue writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned endorsement dated:14.12.2017, bearing No.Pa.Pam.Ba/Ka.Pa.Na/2017-18 vide Annexure-N issued by Respondent no.1

¶33

ii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.1 to consider the representation dated: 02.11.2017 vide Annexure-M.

¶34

Sri V.S. Kalsurmath, learned counsel for petitioners s ubmitted that challenge in this writ petition is against endorsement at Annexure-N. It was submitted that main ground for issuance of Annexure-N was about pendency of civil suit filed in representative capacity. It was submitted subject matter land, i.e. property no.769/2 situated at Bhaghyanagar, Koppal, belonged to petitioners under title deed dated 17.11.1983. Since there was obstruction by respondents no.4 to 9 against peaceful enjoyment, petitioners filed OS no.106/2016 before Civil Judge, Koppal. In said suit, trial Court had allowed petitioners application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC and granted temporary injunction. It was submitted against said order petitioner nos. 4 to 9 had filed Miscellaneous Appeal no.5/2017. In meanwhile,

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6061 WP No. 108199 of 2018

¶36

respondents no.4 to 9 had also filed OS no.39/2016 seeking for declaration of title and for permanent injunction against petitioners claiming that petitioners’ property lying in a public road. It was submitted that said suit was returned to be filed before proper Court on 06.01.2020, but till date, petitioners have not received notice of any suit and they are not aware of any plaint being represented. It is further submitted that miscellaneous appeal filed by respondents no.4 to 9 against interim injunction came to be dismissed on 06.01.2022 and to knowledge of petitioners, said order has also attained finality.

¶37

In view of above, circumstances under which impugned endorsement was issued had changed, respondents are required to re-examine petitioners’ request for renewal of building permission.

¶38

On other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.1 Sri Sanjay S.Katageri, fairly submitted that if suit filed by respondents nos.4 to 9 was no more pending, there would be no impediment for respondents to reconsider.

¶39

Heard learned counsel for petitioners and perused writ petition record.

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6061 WP No. 108199 of 2018

¶41

In view of above submission, wherein suit pending and cause of issuance of impugned endorsement having been not subsisting, there would be no justification for sustaining impugned endorsement. It would be proper to direct respondents to reconsider petitioners’ application for building permission.

¶42

Fact that petitioners herein have filed suit and obtained order of temporary injunction in respect of property no.769/2 would enure to petitioners and would required to be considered by respondents.

¶43

In view of above, following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

Writ petition is allowed in part.

¶46

Impugned order at Annexure-N is set aside.

¶47

Respondents are directed to reconsider petitioners’ application in light of above changed circumstances. To facilitate reconsideration, petitioners shall produce copy of order sheet in OS no.39/2016 as well as order dated

¶48

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6061 WP No. 108199 of 2018

¶49

06.01.2022 passed in Miscellaneous Appeal no.5/2017 to

¶50

respondents.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

VMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42

Smt.Saroja D/O Late Yellusa Bhakale v. the Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Saroja D/O Late Yellusa Bhakale v. the Director

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 Shobha W/O Shivanagouda Biradar Vs the State of Karnataka

Shivappa Basappa Kallur Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Shivanandmungarwadi S/O Shankarappa Mungarwadi Vs M/S R.N Hattaraki

Smt. Rekha W/O Maruti Hundre Vs the State of Karnataka

Huzur Ahamad Naik S/O Mohammad Nazir Ahamad Vs the City Municipal Council

Muragesh S/O Gurunath Goraguddi Vs the State of Karnataka