Allowed

Sri Shivakumar v. the Mysuru Urban Development Authority

Karnataka HC13 Nov 2024WP/20163/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Landowner challenged a MUDA endorsement restraining him from constructing a compound wall because adjacent developed layouts would be affected. The Court held his right to use his property could not be obstructed without acquisition, presumed separate access existed for approved layouts, and quashed the impugned communication, subject to proceedings under law.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri Shivakumar Vs the Mysuru Urban Development Authority — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:46095 WP No. 20163 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 20163 OF 2024 (LB-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI SHIVAKUMAR

¶7

S/O LATE VENKATACHALA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 1100.C, CH-6, DEVAPARTHVI ROAD, NEAR RTO OFFICE CHAMARAJPURAM, LAKSHMIPURAM, MYSURU 570004.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SANGAMESH R B.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY J.L.B. ROAD, MYSURU - 570 001.

¶13

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, J.L.B. ROAD, MYSURU - 570 001.

¶14

THE RANGE OFFICER MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY J.L.B. ROAD, MYSURU - 570 001.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. SACHIN V R.,ADVOCATE A/W

¶17

SRI. T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:46095 WP No. 20163 of 2024

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I) QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION DATED 24.6.2024 BEARING NO.MY.NA.PR/VC.KG-7/2024-25, ISSUED BY THE OFFICER, MUDA,MYSURU. A COPY IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioner is the owner of 22 guntas of land in Survey No.57/3 of Lingambudi village, Kasaba Taluk, Mysuru District, and the petitioner is aggrieved by the third respondent's Endorsement dated 24.06.2024 [ Annexure-A ]. The impugned Endorsement reads that the lands in adjacent Survey Nos.49/1A, 2A, 3, and 4P have been developed into residential sites and if the petitioner constructs a compound wall to his property access to these layouts would be hampered.

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:46095 WP No. 20163 of 2024

¶27

Sri Sangamesh R B, the learned

¶28

counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner cannot be restrained from putting up construction or taking measures to ensure that his property is not exposed to vagaries of encroachment, trespass etc. Sri Sachin V R, the learned counsel for the respondents, who is supported by Sri T.P. Vivekananda, is heard in view of the petitioner’s grievance as aforesaid.

¶29

This Court's considered opinion is

¶30

that the petitioner has a formidable case in asserting his right to use the property either for construction of a compound wall or otherwise, and such right cannot be obstructed without the property being acquired. This Court must additionally opine that if there are approved layouts in and around the petitioner's property, the presumption must be that approvals have been granted after ensuring that there is

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:46095 WP No. 20163 of 2024

¶33

separate access to these layouts without affecting the petitioner's rights to his property. In that event, the reason assigned to restrict the petitioner from putting up construction in his property cannot be sustained and the impugned communication must yield.

¶34

However, this Court must also observe that any construction by the petitioner will be subject to such proceedings that may be initiated strictly in accordance with law and that the construction by the petitioner cannot impede any easement that may be in the subject property. It is needless to observe that this Court's observations are subject to all just exceptions lest it be construed that this Court’s opinion is after considering all related questions as these observations are contextual and limited for the present purposes. In the light of the afore, the following:

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:46095 WP No. 20163 of 2024

¶37

ORDER

¶38

The petition stands allowed quashing the third respondent's impugned communication dated

¶39

24.6.2024 [ ANNEXURE-A ].

¶40

SD/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶41

Sri Shivakumar v. the Mysuru Urban Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri Shivakumar v. the Mysuru Urban Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Sunandamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. B. Eshwaramma Vs the State of Karnataka

V.K.Mohammed Afzal Vs the Commissioner Bbmp

Sri S M Ramesh Vs the Chief Executioe Officer

Sri H.B. Basavaraj Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Doddamuniyappa Vs Zilla Panchayat