Disposed

Sri S R Shankar Rao v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC28 Nov 2024WP/13351/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a notice to stop asphalting work on land. Writ Court stayed the second respondent's development work pending appellate decisions on a related civil suit, granting an eight-week interim restraint.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; Second respondent restrained from asphalting or development work on Sy.No.69/2 Belavadi Village for eight weeks pending appellate court decisions.

Sri S R Shankar Rao Vs the State of Karnataka — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:48919 WP No. 13351 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 13351 OF 2024 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI S R SHANKAR RAO S/O LATE S K RAJA RAO AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT NO 606, KHB COLONY HOOTAGALLI BELAVADI POST, MYSURU 570018

¶9

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

SRI S R GOPAL RAO S/O LATE S K RAJA RAO AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT NO 606, KHB COLONY HOOTAGALLI BELAVADI POST, MYSURU 570018

¶11

SRI S R NARAYANA RAO S/O LATE S K RAJA RAO AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT NO 606, KHB COLONY HOOTAGALLI BELAVADI POST, MYSURU 570018

¶12

SMT JANAKI S R D/O LATE S K RAJA RAO AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT NO 606, KHB COLONY

¶13

NC: 2024:KHC:48919 WP No. 13351 of 2024

¶14

¶15

HOOTAGALLI BELAVADI POST, MYSURU 570018

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI NARASIMHARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶18

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA M S BUILDING, BENGALURU 560001

¶19

THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER HOOTAGALLI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, HOOTAGALLI MYSURU 570018

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY MS. SPOORTHI V., HCGP FOR R1; MR. G.M. ANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 24.4.24 ISSUED BY THE R2 VIDE BEARING NO. 03/2024-25 AS PER ANNEXURE-A.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:48919 WP No. 13351 of 2024

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The petitioners are aggrieved by the second respondent's Communication dated 24.04.2024 [ Annexure-A ]. The second respondent has issued this communication informing the petitioners that they are obstructing with the asphalting work asserting that such work is in a private land. The second respondent has called upon the petitioners to produce documents to justify their stand.

¶29

This Court, on 29.05.2024 while recording inter lia (a) that the petitioners have filed a civil suit in O.S.No.1418/2023 against the defendants and the second respondent, (b) that the second respondent has filed written statement without claiming any interest adverse to the petitioners' interest in the subject property but is pursuing for asphalting relying upon a State Government's certain circular and (c) that the trial Court has reserved the petitioners' application for temporary injunction for

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:48919 WP No. 13351 of 2024

¶32

orders on 25.04.2024, has restrained the second respondent from undertaking the asphalting work. This order is made operative until the civil Court's orders on the pending applications.

¶33

It is admitted that presently the civil Court

¶34

has rejected the petitioners' application and they have filed their appeal as against such order. Sri. Narasimharaju, the learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that the petitioners continue to be the owners of 5 acres 12 guntas in Sy.No.69/2 of Belawadi Village, Elavala Hobli, Mysuru Taluk with the Southern portion of the total extent of 10 acres 28 guntas in the survey number sold as revenue sites, and that the second respondent is trying to form a road cutting through the 5 acres 12 guntas owned by the petitioners.

¶35

Sri. G. M. Ananda, the learned counsel for the second respondent contends (i) that the petitioners have transferred even the extent of 5 acres

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:48919 WP No. 13351 of 2024

¶38

12 guntas as sites, (ii) that they do not retain any portion in Sy.No.69/2 and (iii) that the second respondent is asphalting a road that is admitted even according to the sale deeds that are executed by the petitioners. Sri. G. M. Ananda, to illustrate the last aspect, proposes to rely upon the sale deeds annexed to the Statement of Objections.

¶39

If the petitioner has filed an appeal against the trial Court’s order rejecting their application for temporary injunction, the appellate Court will have to examine all the material that is placed on record both by the petitioner/the second respondent and the other defendants in the suit to conclude whether the second respondent must be interdicted from asphalting any portion of the land in Sy.No.69/2 of Belawadi Village, Ilavala Hobli, Mysuru Taluk. The appellate Court's decision would also be subject to the final decision in the suit. When all the relevant questions are pending in the original

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:48919 WP No. 13351 of 2024

¶42

proceedings, this Court must not hazard an enquiry on factual assertions.

¶43

Therefore, the petition should be disposed

¶44

of observing that all questions are left open for due consideration by the appellate Court, if the petitioners have filed appeal against the trial Court's Orders on their application for temporary injunction. If the petitioners have not filed the appeal, they must have a reasonable opportunity to avail such remedy as consequences must ensue after the trial Court's order. This Court has granted interim order restraining the second respondent. It is possible, as suggested by Sri. Narasimharaju, that the petitioners may not have either filed the appeal or pursued the appeal to protect their interest in the appeal proceedings. As such, this Court is of the view that reasonable time must be granted to the petitioners so that there is no precipitation until the appellate Court

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:48919 WP No. 13351 of 2024

¶47

considers the petitioners’ request for interim measures. Hence, the following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

The petition stands disposed of leaving open all questions to be considered in the aforesaid proceedings but restraining the second respondent from taking up all development work, including any work for asphalting in the land in Sy.No.69/2 of Belawadi Village, Elavala Hobli, Mysuru Taluk for a period of eight [8] weeks from today while observing that the merits of the petitioners' application shall be considered by the appellate Court,

¶50

if the appeal is filed, independent of this arrangement.

¶51

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶52

Sri S R Shankar Rao v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri S R Shankar Rao v. the State of Karnataka

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

Sri John David Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Varadaraju Vs Executive Officer

Manjunath Babu K Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Suresh Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S G.S. Homes and Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Sri. S. Radhakrishna Vs the Chief Commissioner