Disposed

Smt. Shilpa Prakasha Angadi v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC10 Sept 2024WP/24807/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner facing a demolition endorsement sought mandamus for disposal of her interim stay application in Appeal No.196/2024-25 and restraint from demolition. Court directed the appellate authority to decide within 30 days and restrained precipitate action meanwhile.

What did the court decide?

Direction to R1 to consider interlocutory application within 30 days; respondents not to precipitate matter till then.

Smt. Shilpa Prakasha Angadi Vs the Commissioner — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:36906 WP No. 24807 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 24807 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. SHILPA PRAKASHA ANGADI W/O PRAKASHA V ANGADI, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO.32, SHAMBHAVI NIVASA, GKVK LAYOUT, JAKKUR, BENGALURU-560064.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. NAGARALE SANTOSH SUBHASHCHANDRA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by R DEEPA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560002.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, WEST ZONE, BASHYAM PARK, SESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, GANDHINAGARA SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU-560009

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:36906 WP No. 24807 of 2024

¶20

DIRECT THE R1 TO DISPOSE OF THE INTERIM APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN APPEAL NO. 196/2024-25 VIDE ANNX-R; DIRECT THE R2 AND 3 TO NOT TO DEMOLISH THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY TILL THE DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL NO. 196/2024-25 PENDING ON THE FILE OF R1.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioner has sought for writ of mandamus directing respondent No.1 to dispose of the interim application filed by the petitioner in Appeal No.196/2024-25 vide Annexure-R and sought for mandamus directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 not to demolish the schedule property till the disposal of an application.

¶25

Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition are as

¶26

under:

¶27

The petitioner claims to be the owner of the property in question. Respondent No.3 issued an endorsement to the petitioner for demolishing the building. The petitioner aggrieved by the endorsement issued by respondent No.3, preferred an appeal before respondent No.1 in Appeal No.196/2024-25 and also filed an interlocutory application to stay the execution and

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:36906 WP No. 24807 of 2024

¶29

operation of endorsement. Respondent No.1 has not passed any order on the said application. Hence, this writ petition.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned counsel for the respondents.

¶31

Learned counsel for the respondents that, if reasonable time is granted to respondent No.1, respondent No.1, will consider the interlocutory application and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.

¶32

In view of the same, the writ petition is disposed o f, directing respondent No.1 to consider the interlocutory application and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and meanwhile, the respondents are directed not to precipitate the matter, till passing of an order on interlocutory application.

¶33

Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶34

ssb

Smt. Shilpa Prakasha Angadi v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shilpa Prakasha Angadi 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

Narasimhaiah S/O Late Ugrappa Vs Revanna S/O Ugrappa Alias Ugraiah

Mohammed Abbas Since Dead by His Lrs Vs Gangaiah Since Dead by His Lrs

Davanagere Smart City Limited (Dscl) Vs M/S Kinetic Green Energy and Power Solution Limited

Smt. Kemappamma Vs Renuka

Mr Anto Michael Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt H S Madhumathi Bai Vs the State of Karnataka