Allowed

Rekha v. the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Karnataka HC23 Apr 2024WP/200751/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a mandamus directing the Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council, Bhalki to consider her representations against alleged illegal construction by respondents 3 and 4. The Chief Officer agreed to consider them; the court allowed the petition and directed action within three months.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.2 directed to consider Annexures F, F1, F2 within three months and pass appropriate orders/communication in accordance with law.

Rekha Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors. — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:3195 WP No. 200751 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶3

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.200751 OF 2024 (LB-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

REKHA W/O RAJENDRA MANKARI AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD AND AGRICULTURE, RESIDENCE OF AMBESANGAVI, TQ: BHALKI, DISTRICT: BIDAR NOW RESIDING AT HOUSE NO. 5-1-110 LOKHANDE GALLI, GUNJ AREA, BHALKI TOWN, DISTRICT: BIDAR-585328.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI K. M. GHATE, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SHILPA R TENIHALLI Location: High Court Of Karnataka

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, M. S. BUILDING, VIDHANA VEEDHI, VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶15

THE CHIEF OFFICER, TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, BHALKI DISTRICT: BIDAR-585328.

¶16

SMT. SUNITA W/O MAHADEV BULLA AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK RESIDENCE OF H NO. 5-111/2 LOKHANDE GALLI, GUNJ AREA, BHALKI TOWN, DISTRICT: BIDAR-585328.

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:3195 WP No. 200751 of 2024

¶18

SMT. UMA W/O LATE SHIVAPUTRA BULLA AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, RESIDENCE OF H NO. 5/111/2 LOKHANDE GALLI, GUNJ AREA, BHALKI TOWN, DISTRICT: BIDAR-585328.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT. MAYA T. R., HCGP FOR R1; R3 AND R4 SERVED;

¶21

SRI GOURISH S. KHASHAMPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS/ORDER/DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 TO ACT UPON THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON DATED 08.07.2019, 10.07.2023 AND 13.02.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-F, F1 AND F2 TO THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION, THEREBY PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS ON THE SAID REPRESENTATIONS AS PER SECTION 187 OF THE KARNATAKA MUNICIPALITIES ACT 1964 AND THEREBY PROCEED FOR DEMOLITION OF ILLEGAL AND UNAUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION CARRIED OUT BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 3 AND 4 ON THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Heard learned counsel Sri K.M.Ghate for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader Smt.Maya T.R. for respondent No.1 and learned counsel Sri Gourish S. Khashampur for respondent No.2.

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:3195 WP No. 200751 of 2024

¶27

2. The writ petition is filed with the following

¶28

prayers:

¶29

“a) Issue a writ of mandamus/order/direction, directing the respondent No.2 to act upon the representation submitted by the petitioner on dated 08.07.2019, 10.07.2023 and 13.02.2024 vide Annexure-F, F1 and F2 to the present writ petition, thereby pass appropriate orders on the said representations as per Section 187 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 and thereby proceed for demolition of illegal and unauthorized construction carried out by the respondent No. 3 and 4 on the property of the petitioner.

¶30

b) Issue any other order/direction, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, even by considering the cost of the present writ petition as against all the respondents, to meet the ends of justice and equity.”

¶31

3. The facts in brief are as under:

¶32

The petitioner has purchased the shop and open plot

¶33

bearing TMC No.5-1-98 (old) 5-1-110 (new) measuring East-West 15’ North-South 100’ consisting of one shop measuring 10’x10’ sitatued at Gandhi Chowk to Subash

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:3195 WP No. 200751 of 2024

¶35

Chowk main road, Gunj area, Bhalki under the registered sale deed.

¶36

The learned counsel for the petitioner

¶37

contended that respondent Nos.3 and 4 have made illegal construction and therefore, the representations are given by the petitioner to respondent No.2 to demolish the illegal construction put up by respondent Nos.3 and 4. But, respondent No.2 has not taken any action in pursuance of the representations given by the petitioner as per Annexures-F, F1 and F2. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶38

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that Annexures- F, F1 and F2 would be considered by respondent No.2 and suitable action would be taken.

¶39

Placing the submission made learned counsel for respondent No.2, the following order is passed:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

a) The writ petition stands allowed.

¶42

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:3195 WP No. 200751 of 2024

¶43

b) Respondent No.2 is directed to consider

¶44

representations given by the petitioner vide Annexures- F, F1 and F2 within a period of three months from today and pass appropriate

¶45

orders/communication in accordance with law.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

SRT CT:SI LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 48

Rekha v. the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rekha v. the State of Karnataka and Ors.

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

Sushilabai and Ors. Vs Gourish and Ors.

Rubina Parveen Bagban W/O Rasheed Ahmed Bagban @ Mohammad Abdul Rasheed Vs the Deputy Commissioner and Anr.

Nitin and Anr. Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Shravankumar Vs Bassamma and Ors.

Kalyanappa Vs the Tahsildar and Anr.

Dhanaraj S/O Puranmal Jain Dhoka Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.