Dismissed

Sri.G.Shashidhar v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC2 Dec 2024WP/23902/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging a house allotment in favour of a respondent was dismissed as devoid of merit due to lack of prima facie evidence. The court directed the authorities to take action against an unauthorized possessor.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed. Respondents directed to initiate action to evict unauthorized possessor and cancel allotment within twelve weeks.

Sri.G.Shashidhar Vs the Commissioner — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:49294 WP No. 23902 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶6

WRIT PETITION No. 23902 OF 2013 (GM-SLUM)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI.G.SHASHIDHAR, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, S/O GANGANNA, R/A No.11, SLUM BOARD, HOUSING COMPLEX, SRINIVASAPURA (KOGILU), YALAHANKA POST, BANGALORE560064.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI RUDRAPPA P., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER, KARNATAKA SLUM CLEARANCE BOARD, No.55, 3^RD FLOOR, SADANA COMPLEX, RESALADHAR ROAD, SESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE560020.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, No.4, SUB-DIVISION, KARNATAKA SLUM CLEARANCE BOARD, No.55, 3^RD FLOOR, SADANA COMPLEX, RESADALADHAR ROAD, SESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE560020.

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:49294 WP No. 23902 of 2013

¶17

SRI. RANGANATHACHAR, S/O RAGHAVENDRA, AGED MAJOR, RESIDING AT 43, 1^ST CROSS, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560064.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI D. VENUGOPAL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SMT. NETHRAVATHI K., ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ALLOTMENT LETTER DATED 17.9.2012 ISSUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-G. DIRECT THE RESPONDENT Nos.1 & 2 TO EXECUTE THE REGISTERED SALE DEED IN RESPECT OF HOUSE BEARING No.L-11 OF SRINIVASPURA IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER.

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Sri. Rudrappa P., learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. D. Venugopal, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Smt. Nethravathi K., learned counsel for respondent No.3.

¶25

This petition challenging the allotment letter dated 17.09.2022 at Annexure-G wherein, the house bearing No.L-11 is allotted in favour of respondent No.3. It is the case of the petitioner that the very house is allotted in

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:49294 WP No. 23902 of 2013

¶28

favour of the petitioner and the subsequent allotment in favour of respondent No.3 is illegal.

¶29

In support of the said contention, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.1 has issued a slip for acknowledging the amount, the possession was handed over to the petitioner and the petitioner is residing in the said house. Learned counsel refers to electricity bill issued by the Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited (BESCOM) at Annexure-F to evident that the petitioner is in possession.

¶30

Respondent Nos.1 and 2, in-compliance of the directions of the Court, filed an affidavit dated 04.11.2024 affirmed by Assistant Executive Engineer i.e., respondent No.2 wherein, it is stated that at no point of time, the house in question was allotted in favour of the petitioner. It is stated that the house was allotted in favour of respondent No.3.

¶31

Another fact is brought on record that though the house was allotted in favour of respondent No.3, on

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:49294 WP No. 23902 of 2013

¶33

personal inspection it is found that one Sri. Ambrose is in possession of the house and his possession is considered as unauthorized and in violation of the conditions of the allotment.

¶34

The affidavit filed on 29.11.2024 affirmed by respondent No.2 would further indicate that the respondents would initiate necessary action to evict the Sri. Ambrose Kumar from the house in question and appropriate action would be taken for cancellation of the allotment in favour of respondent No.3 for having violated the conditions of allotment.

¶35

Having considered the submissions of learned

¶36

counsel for the parties, it is clear that prima facie the petitioner has not placed any evidence on record to establish that the house in question was allotted in his favour. The statement made on affidavit by respondent Nos.1 and 2 that one Sri. Ambrose is in possession and at no point, the petitioner herein was allotted nor was placed

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:49294 WP No. 23902 of 2013

¶39

in possession of the house in question cannot be

¶40

immediately disregarded.

¶41

Having considered the facts on record, the writ petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly, it is dismissed. However, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are hereby directed to initiate the necessary action as stated in the affidavit dated 29.11.2024 and action taken shall be reported to this Court within a period of twelve weeks.

¶42

Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶43

VBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33

Sri.G.Shashidhar v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.G.Shashidhar v. the Commissioner

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 S K Nithyananda Vs Sri. Thushar Girinath

Sri Prashanth Ganapathi Raikar Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Shantha K. Hiremat Vs the Commissioner

Indian Public School Vs State of Karnataka

Nagarajappa Vs Basamma

Sri. M. Anandaiah Vs Public Information Commissioner