Allowed

Sri M Sridhar v. the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Karnataka HC9 Sept 2024WP/16482/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a cryptic order cancelling a katha without reasons or prior hearing. The court held the order violated natural justice due to non-application of mind and quashed it, remitting the matter for fresh consideration with a hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 21.08.2021 quashed; matter remitted to respondent 2 with directions to make documents available and provide hearing opportunity.

Sri M Sridhar Vs the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:36639 WP No. 16482 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 16482 OF 2021 (LB-BMP)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. M. SRIDHAR, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O MUNIYAPPA, NO. 01, 3RD FLOOR, SRIAMEYA SECURE, SUDARSHANAMMA ARCADE, 8TH CROSS, 24TH MAIN, J.P. NAGAR, 2ND PHASE, BENGALURU - 560 078.

¶8

Digitally signed by YAMUNA K L Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶9

SRI. M. ASHWATH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O MUNIYAPPA, NO. 01, 3RD FLOOR, SRIAMEYA SECURE, SUDARSHANAMMA ARCADE, 8TH CROSS, 24TH MAIN, J.P. NAGAR, 2ND PHASE, BENGALURU - 560 078.

¶10

SMT. M. PARVATHI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, W/O M. SRIDHAR, NO. 01, 3RD FLOOR, SRIAMEYA SECURE, SUDARSHANAMMA ARCADE, 8TH CROSS, 24TH MAIN, J.P. NAGAR, 2ND PHASE, BENGALURU - 560 078.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. VIVEK B.N, ADVOCATE)

¶13

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:36639 WP No. 16482 of 2021

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶16

JOINT COMMISSIONER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BOMMANAHALLI RANGE, BENGALURU - 68.

¶17

ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, BBMP, AREKERE SUB DIVISION, BENGALURU SOUTH, BENGALURU - 573 134.

¶18

S. KRISHNA, S/O SIDDAPPA V, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, AT GO3, 1ST BLOCK, KRYSTAL DOLOMITE APARTMENTS, NARAYANAGAR 1ST BLOCK, DODDAKALLASANDRA, BENGALURU - 62

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. SUBRAMANI M.A, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. PRAKASH M.H, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.08.2021 PASSED BY THE R2 IN CASE NO.WA/193/PR/A39/20-21 ORDERING CANCELLATION OF THE KATHA AT ANNEXURE-O TO THE WRIT PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY, DIRECT THE R2 AND 3 TO RESTORE THE

¶22

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:36639 WP No. 16482 of 2021

¶23

KHATHA IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY IN THE NAME OF 3RD PETITIONER AND ETC.,

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Petitioners filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 21.08.2021 wherein 2^nd respondent has ordered for cancellation of katha vide Annexure-O and to direct respondents 2 and 3 to restore the katha in respect of schedule property in the name of petitioner No.3.

¶28

The grievance of the petitioners is that, respondent No.2 without assigning any reasons passed a cryptic order and also before passing the impugned order no opportunity was provided to the petitioners to put forth their case. Hence on these grounds prays to allow the writ petition.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:36639 WP No. 16482 of 2021

¶31

When a specific query was put to learned counsel for respondent No.2, whether respondent No.2 has assigned any reasons in the impugned order, he fairly concedes that respondent No.2 has not assigned any reasons in the impugned order. Hence he prayed to dispose of the writ petition with necessary direction to respondent No.2.

¶32

Heard and considered the submission made by learned counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned order, which is a cryptic order.

¶33

Respondent No.2 while passing the impugned order has not applied its mind and simply passed one line order and further no opportunity was provided to the petitioners to put forth their case. Hence the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 is in violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, on these grounds and for non application of mind, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶34

In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed . The impugned order Annexure-O dated

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:36639 WP No. 16482 of 2021

¶36

21.08.2021 passed by the 2^nd respondent is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted to respondent No.2 for fresh consideration. Respondent No.2 shall make available the complaint and documents filed in the proceedings and enable the petitioners to submit their reply. The respondent shall provide sufficient opportunity to the petitioners to reply to the complaint and thereafter proceed with the matter in accordance with law.

¶37

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶38

NG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25 CT: BHK

Sri M Sridhar v. the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M Sridhar v. the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

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

Mr. Hanumegowda Vs Sri Doddegowda

Sri. M. B. Shiva Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Adarsh Enterprises Vs the Commissioner

Smt. Rupa Sunder Raj Urs Vs M/S Manasa Properties

Sri B a Prakasha Vs the State of Karnataka

Mallesha Vs State of Karnataka