Disposed

Isaq Jamadar v. the Municipal Corporation

Karnataka HC6 Nov 2024WP/201148/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition challenged a Municipal Corporation notice directing removal of alleged illegal construction. Court directed petitioner to submit a reply with documents within five weeks; respondent to hear petitioner and complainant and decide per law, interim order continuing meanwhile.

What did the court decide?

No quashing granted; petitioner to reply to notice within five weeks, Corporation to hear parties and decide per law; interim order to remain in force until decision.

Isaq Jamadar Vs the Municipal Corporation — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

��

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶4

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.201148 OF 2023 (LB-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MR. ISAQ JAMADAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O IBRAHMI SAB JAMADAR R/AT MIRDHE GALLI, SHAHOO NAGAR, OPP. TO NITIN HOSPITAL VIJAYAPURA - 586 101.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. LIYAQAT FAREED USTAD, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by LUCYGRACE Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VIJAYAPURA CITY BAGALKOT ROAD, JALNAGAR, VIJAYAPURA - 586 109.

¶16

(BY SRI. AMARESH S ROJA ADV.)

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN NATURE OF NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY APPROPRIATE WRIT QUASHING THE NOTICE � � �� DATED 21.03.2023 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT, PRODUCED HEREIN AT ANNEXURE – ‘D’.

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

��

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)

¶25

In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

¶26

“To issue a writ in nature of nature of certiorari or any

¶27

appropriate writ quashing the notice � � �� dated 21.03.2023,

¶28

issued by respondent, produced herein at ANNEXURE –‘D’

¶29

a) Pass such other orders/directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of this case in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶31

counsel for the respondent as well as learned counsel for impleading applicant and perused the material on record.

¶32

In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged

¶33

in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned notice calling upon the petitioner to remove the alleged illegal and unauthorized construction is contrary to the facts and law and is in violation of

¶34

¶35

��

¶36

principles of natural justice warranting interference by this Court in the present petition.

¶37

Per contra, learned counsel for the impleading – applicant, who is the original complainant submits that the petitioner has put-up illegal and unauthorized construction on the subject property and the same deserves to be demolished and removed by the respondent – Corporation.

¶38

Learned counsel for the respondent – Corporation submits that if petitioner submits reply along with documents to the impugned notice at Annexure – D dated 21.03.2023, the respondent – Corporation would consider the same and provide an opportunity to the petitioner as well as the impleading applicant and proceed further in accordance with law.

¶39

The said submission made by learned counsel for the parties is placed on record.

¶40

It is relevant to state that when the matter came up before this Court on 31.03.2023, the following interim order was passed:

¶41

“Sri. Liyaqat Fareed Ustad, learned counsel for the petitioner has appeared in person.

¶42

¶43

��

¶44

Issue notice to the respondent, if process fee is paid.

¶45

Learned counsel on instructions submits that the notice dated: 21.03.2023 is not implemented as on today.

¶46

Submission is noted.

¶47

Interim order as prayed for.”

¶48

The aforesaid interim order passed by this Court is

¶49

subsisting and continues to remain in force even till today.

¶50

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and submissions made by both sides, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition directing the petitioner to submit his reply along with relevant documents to the impugned notice at Annexure – D within a period of five weeks from today. Pursuant to the petitioner submitting such a reply along with documents as stated supra, respondent – Corporation shall provide an opportunity to the petitioner as well as the impleading applicant and hear them and pass appropriate orders / take appropriate decision, in accordance with law.

¶51

It is further directed that till respondent – Corporation passes appropriate orders / take appropriate decision as stated supra, the aforesaid interim order dated 31.03.2023 passed by this Court shall remain in force and operate between the parties.

¶52

¶53

��

¶54

Subject to the aforesaid observations and directions,

¶55

the petition stands disposed of.

¶56

In view of the disposal of the main petition, impleading

¶57

application does not survive for consideration and the same is accordingly disposed of.

¶58

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶59

SV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56

Isaq Jamadar v. the Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Isaq Jamadar v. the Municipal Corporation

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

Kumar Arun S/O Vishwanath Shindhe Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Savita Vs Surendra and Ors.

Basavaraj Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Sayeda Banu Vs the Deputy Commissioner and Ors.

Nagamma Vs Shakunatala and Ors.

Khasim Minya Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.