Disposed

K Praveen v. K C Raju

Karnataka HC2 Aug 2024WP/12433/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition where petitioners challenged a notice restraining construction of a hotel. The Court treated the notice as a show-cause notice, permitted the petitioners to file a reply, and directed the authority to provide an opportunity of hearing before passing a final order.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed. Notice treated as show-cause notice; petitioners permitted to file reply; respondents to provide hearing opportunity.

K Praveen Vs K C Raju — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:31280 WP No. 12433 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.12433 OF 2021 (LB-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

K PRAVEEN S/O LATE KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶10

H S INDIRA W/O LATE KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

¶11

BOTH ARE R/AT KATTEBELAGULI VILLAGE HALEKOTE HOBLI HOLENARASIPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

Digitally signed by R DEEPA

¶14

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

(BY SRI. VIGNESHWAR S. SHASTRY, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. NARENDRA GOWDA, SRI. B.J. KRISHNA, ADVOCATES)

¶16

AND:

¶17

K C RAJU S/O K V CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

¶18

K V CHANDRAPPA S/O VEERAPPA

¶19

AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS

¶20

BOTH ARE R/AT KATTEBELAGULI VILLAGE HALEKOTE HOBLI

¶21

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:31280 WP No. 12433 of 2021

¶22

HOLENARASIPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT

¶23

THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER KATTEBELAGULI GRAM PANCHAYAT HALEKOTE HOBLI HOLENARASIPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT

¶24

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN.

¶25

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OFFICE OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYAT, HASSAN.

¶26

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER OFFICE TALUK PANCHAYAT HOLENARASIPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT

¶27

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HOLENARASIPURA TOWN STATION, HOLENARASIPURA HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶28

K.C. DAKSHINA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS S/O K.C. CHANDRAPPA R/AT KATTEBELAGULI VILLAGE HALEKOTE HOBLI HOLENARASIPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SRI. SUNEEL S. NARAYAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 & R8 SRI. A NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R3, R5 & R6 SRI. M.S. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R6 SRI. KENCHEGOWDA H.K., AGA FOR R4 & R7)

¶31

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:31280 WP No. 12433 of 2021

¶32

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09.06.2021 ISSUED BY R3 GRAM PANCHAYAT RESTRAINING THE PETITIONER FROM CONSTRUCTING BUILDING IN RESPECT OF THE UNDISPUTED PORTION IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY IN SY.NO.58/IA OF KATTEBELAGULI VILLAGE, HALEKOTE HOBLI, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶33

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶34

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners

¶37

challenging the notice dated 09.06.2021 vide Annexure-A.

¶38

It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners obtained a license from the Tourism Development Authority in order to construct a tourism hotel in Sy.No.58/1A of Kattebelaguli village, Halekote Hobli, Holenarasipura Taluk. After obtaining necessary permission from the competent authority, the petitioners proceeded with the construction of the hotel. It is contended that respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed a suit in O.S.No.12/2018 to declare that respondent Nos.1 and 2

¶39

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:31280 WP No. 12433 of 2021

¶40

are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property and further relief to demolish the illegal construction put up by the petitioners herein towards the northern side of the schedule property measuring 3 feet from North to South and 90 feet from East to West.

¶41

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed an interlocutory application seeking an order of temporary injunction against the petitioners herein. The petitioners from putting up any sajja or roof over 10 ft x 90 ft in the property abutting to the house of respondent Nos.1 and 2 towards the northern side and not to put up further construction.

¶42

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners filed the written statement seeking a counter claim and also filed an interlocutory application. He also submits the said application filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 was allowed by the trial Court.

¶43

The petitioners herein, aggrieved by the order on temporary injunction granted in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2, preferred miscellaneous appeal and the said

¶44

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:31280 WP No. 12433 of 2021

¶45

appeal came to be dismissed. Against the said order, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.24987/2022. This Court, vide order dated 10.01.2023, injunction order was restricted to the extent as mentioned in para (D).

¶46

Respondent No.3 has issued a notice to the petitioners calling upon the petitioners to demolish the structure based on the property in question and the said notice is only a notice.

¶47

Learned counsel for the parties submits that the said notice may be treated as show-cause notice and permit the petitioners to file a reply to said show-cause notice and the respondents may consider the reply and then pass an appropriate orders in accordance with law. Accordingly, Annexure-A is treated as show-cause notice. The petitioners are permitted to file a reply to the showcause notice within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. Thereafter, respondent No.3 is directed to consider the reply and provide an opportunity

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:31280 WP No. 12433 of 2021

¶50

of hearing * to both petitioners as well as respondent Nos.1,2 and 8, and thereafter pass appropriate order, in accordance with law, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the reply.

¶51

In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

The writ petition is disposed off .

¶54

All the contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶55

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶56

SSB

¶57

*Inserted vide Court order dated 03.09.2024

K Praveen v. K C Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Praveen v. K C Raju

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

Yashoda v Acharya Vs the Chief Commissioner

Lakshmi Ravindranath Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Sri Muniswamy Reddy Vs Sri R. Yama Reddy

Sri Shanthilal Vs the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Smt Lakshmi Devi Vs State of Karnataka

R Hemanth Kumar Vs Sri B P Thammegowda