Karnataka High Court
Chandrashekhar S/O Basanna vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 March, 2010
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
_ RAIC}§{UR:5841'0.,1__IV'
INTWHEHKHTCOURTCHTKARNATAKA,
CHKKWTBENCHATCRHBARGA.
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH,
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE ANAND I: u
WRIT PETITION NO.80:949IIOE :?;0_1"Of 4'
A/W WRIT I>ETIT1ONV NO.80_9EO OF 2910 = "
WRIT PETITION N'O;8_0951~..OF 20101,;
WRIT PETTTION NOIEOQ52 OF 2019
WRIT PETITION NQ,_80.953 OF 20_1O F
& WRIT PETITIONNQ.809521.013? "2010 (LB--RES)
IN W.P.80949/2010:
BETWEEN;
CHANDRASHEIKHAE £3/O.BAsAI\INA',
AGED ABOUT V5.s:yVEARs;I._ _
OCC: EMPLOYEE IN LTD"
MPL.NO.8--'-.21-I182'/5;".' . '
PANcHAMUIO~I1"COLOI~_W;'~~--"
... PETITIONER
(BYSRI RAO KAKKERI, ADV.,}
V . 1. THE OF KARNATAKA,
RBRBYYKHEEREUWNLWBMVDEVBLWMENT
I ms. BUILDING.
. BANGALORE 1
2.} THE RAICHUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.
Ix.)
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
BUS~STAN D ROAD.
RAICHUR.
3. THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL.
EAICHIIE. ,
REPRESENTED BY ITS COIvIMISSIONER..-- " -- A. j I
.. RES?EON.DEIITS" If-,_ = A 7
(BY SR1 S.S. KUMMAN, GOVTI»AD_vOCATE 1?OIZv"IV{;:1v:T1'_V.VC)
THIS WRIT PETITIO.N I«fIII;EI:;S--I'I;N33ER AI:*IIC':,ES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUIIIONI»V:>RAI?INO"TO:
1} ISSUE A WRIT OE.:""'§;'tIASIIINC THE
IMPUGNEI3' "';I.INOTI:CE " NO. RDA/UNI
AUTHOJR"IS'ED:lI'3I;I):G>Ia;vICTION:/2009~20I0/4345
DATED IEVIPUGNED HEREIN AS
ANNExUI§E';'A--;V._ _ '
2} ISSUE" _ A. WRI.fI* PROHIBITION AGAINST
,,I3§ESI9.ONDEIITS FROM TAKING ANY ACTION IN TERMS
" _ "OF A'NN'ExURE-AAND ETC.
iN_\Kf,E.sé9Sé»;['2'O1o:
V A
I " 'LAXMINARAYAN SWAMY
"S/'O SHESHAPPA.
._;_AGE'34 YEARS, OCC: PVT. EMPLOYEE,
MP?L.NO.8w11~182/1,
A " PANCHAMUKHI COLONY.
IA
RAICHUR--584l0I.
PETITIONEJR
{BY SR1 GURURAJ RAO KAKKERI, ADV..)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNAT/AKA,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY URBAN DEvEvLOI9IvIENT,"
M.S. BUILDING,
BANGALORE1 - W
2. THE RAICHUR DEVELOPMEN'FAUTHORiTY§ 3
REP. BYITS COMMISSIONER'; -.
BUS~STAND ROAD,' ' "
RAICHUR.
3. THE CITY MUIj\IICIPAI;"COIj}NCII;','»-_V_ 1 ~ V'
RAICHUR, "
REPRESEIITED---..E3{ I" __v..C'OIyIE/IISSIONER.
""" RESPONDENTS
[BY SR1 Es". 'IG:OVff....ADvOCATE FOR R 1. TO R~«3}
..«.§:.}'I;«II;'3 wRITv--.I?I:{IfITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
_ "'g?mIIj:'O'22'7;'I CONSTITUTION, PRAYING TO:
1)"'«IIVRIT OF CEJRTIORARI, QUASHING THE
".IIV;PUCI\I'E«;D'?' NOTICE BEARING NO. RDA/UN»
A'I,I'mORI'SED~ELDG~EVICTION/2009-2010/16-18,
I DATED 19.3.2010, WHICH IS IMPUGNED HEREIN AS
" . AN_NEXURE~A.
'£1;
2] ISSUE A WRIT OF PROHIBITION AGAINST
RESPONDENTS FROM TAKING ANY ACTION IN TERMS
OF ANNEXURE~A AN D ETC.
IN W.P.8095 3/2030:
BEE! WEEN:
DRHARISH MURTHY
S/O M.V.MURTHY, I
AGE 40 YEARS,
OCC: CONSULTANT ORTHOPEDIC SU_RGEON;'* -_ C, " M
MPL.NO.12--10~97/60 TO 64,
PARAS GARDEN, SIYA--TALAB,
RAECHUR--584101. ' -~ ._
... PETITIONER
(BY SR1 GURURAJ RAO _
AND:
1. TH E: STATE 'CiF«..KARNA'l'AKA,_'
REP."=5Y1T'S S13:CRE'TARY"uREAN DEVELOPMENT.
M.S. BEHLDING. _ "
BANGALOREJ ' '
- 2. EE§A.ICHUI?'DEXIELOPMENT AUTHORITY.
" ,RL'.P-"BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
A 'E1JS'Av--.S'TAND' ROAD.
3. Tm: CrTYi'.MUN1C1PAL COUNCIL,
RAICHUR.
AA REIDRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
.. . RESPOND ENTS
{ASYISRJ S.S. KUMMAN, GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R-3)
*=?*
:;;:=
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION, PRAYING TO: I
1} ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, QUASIjI1_1f€I}'"':"ITII'EV
IMPUGNED NOTICE BEARING NO._._*"--«
AUTHORISED-ELDGEVICTION/2909-20--I<>,tn_4:O6I 4.
DATED 19.3.2010, WHICH IS :;"IMP1IGI\IED-I';--~1ER.EII$I'V"AS]
ANNEXURE~A.
2) ISSUE A WRIT OF'~.._j"PROi~IlBIT'I*OIN; V,'AGAINST"'
RESPONOENTS FRQM ANY ACIION TERMS
OF ANNEXURE--A AN-[_).I:E_TC. A "
IN w.P.so952/2010:II.I..f_--. I
BETwEEN:_
M.BAS AVAI2AgI:, S / Org LA'1:E CHIDAEVEANDAPPA,
AGE AI3OI_IT 51'--"'{EAF?S',"OCC: BUSINESS.
MPL.NO.8-- 1.1- 182;'3~,. FANG-'HI~'.JV{UKHI COLONY,
BOLAMANADODDI, "RAI.C'I----III'R.
* r ...PETITIONER
- _ (BYSRI _CLrRURAJ~ RAG KAKKERI, ADV.,}
"*I*1+IE"S*I'ATE;;'OF KARNATAKA,
A VBYE'I--TS SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
M.S."'-BUILDING,
BAI'J,O:I'xLORE~1
RAICHUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.
V. REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
BUS--STAND ROAD.
'i
41;...
6
RAICHUR.
3. THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL.
RAICHUR.
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
RESPONDENTS " ~ _
{BY SRI SS. KUMMAN, GOVT. ADVOCATE I+"OR7R} 1 TO' _
=§¢**
THIS WRIT PETITION EILED'I4UI%IADER
AND 227' OF THE CONSTITUTION, PRAYING TOE'
1) ISSUE A WRIT OF CEI§TI:c)I:'A_RI,"'~I;ItIASII'II§IO TI-IE
IMPUGNED NOTICE 'I3EAIé:INOII_. NO."-IA ~I3<DA/UN-
AUTHORIS ED-ELDO1:EI'zIC*I?IO{N ,;'2b-§jj~;i{20 I 0 / 13 15
DATED 19.3.2010, 'IS:>LIMEUC!I:\;-ED HEREIN AS
ANNEXURE=~--A«..j:IVL:41-_ I -
2) ISSUE _ ; PROHIBITION AGAINST
RESPONDENTSi£?fI?:O;I/IO_C"*EA3<INO ANY ACTION IN TERMS
OF ANNEXU;RE~A AND ...ETC.
. IN WI:PI$0953I/201_0;v
't";;FIi'I"'iJVE.E§IsJ:fI. f 1.
SUOAPPA S';*3O'I1AYYANNA,
AOED AEOIIT 42 YEARS.
' OCC: EMPLOYEE IN KPC LTD.,
-« "I/{PL.NOv..8'¥11~182/2,
PANCHAMUKHI COLONY,
I _ 'RAI.CHUR~584IoI.
... PETITIONER
'ICA
{BY SR1 GURURAJ RAO KAKKERI, ADV.,}
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. *
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY URBAN BEvELOB.MENT,V:' ,
IvI.s. BUILDING, : '
BANGALORE-I I
2. THE RAICHUR DEVELOPMEN1' AU=TH'ORiTY.7--3A. ' '
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER;-~... I v_
BUS--STAND ROAD, "
RAICHUR.
3. THE CITY MUNICIpA:;«?i"OU'I*JCiIL1~ 1'
RMCHUR. -_j*: »_x;A;
REPRESENTED BY ITS'COMMI.SS_IONE.R';
' A' ' ' V 1; ..'}.'IéE'SPoNDENTS
(BY SRI SIS. IIUIAAAIAU', FOR R--1 TO R-3)
'I*I~IIS WRI'l'._f'IffFITIQN"FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF"'--TH'E VCQN'S_TITU'1*1oI\I, PRAYING TO:
I) A WRI"Ij______QE CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE
.,IIJIPU};*gNEDI_._ NOTICE BEARING NO. RDA/UN-
*_A:UI?I{IjoI;ISSEB'gBLDG-EVICTION/20092010/4042
"DATED -'iIjs3.S.V2o1o, WHICH Is IMPUGNED HEREIN AS
ANNE;$§URE--A.
Av~?2}AAvVISL'~3J_JE A WRIT OF' PROHIBITION AGAINST
-- 'AA'-:RE$PONDEN'I'S FROM TAKING ANY ACTION IN TERMS
% 'f_ I A .70? ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
IN W.P.80954/20 1 0:
BETWEEN:
D.K.REKHA w/O D.K.MURALEDHAR RAO A
AGE 43 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER AND TR'u'S'I'EE:._ " . '*- "
PANCHMUKHI COLONY,
RAICHUR.
(BY SR1 OURURAJ RAO EAKKE_RI, AI5v,;')"«
AND:
1. THE STATE OF "
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
M.S.BUILDING_, "
BANGALORE; '
2. THE RAR::HL;-R_I)E'vELO1R1vIENT AUTHORITY,
REP. BY, ITS COMII/IISSIO:'xIER.,, I
BUS:¥STANDIV7ROA7fO, I I
RAICEUR-. I "
3. THE CITY'IvIUN'ICI'PALiCOIINCIL,
RAIC_HUR}* "
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
RESPONDENTS
A{BY'S_I2i SIS;.:KEjMMAN, GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR Rm} TO R-3)
***
WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 A E. OF THE CONSTITUTION, PRAYING TO:
.'.j;..1)gISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE ' ....---OIMPUGNED NOTICE BEARING NO. RDA/UN- f\ ."\ 'Y4-/"W j;. --CPETITIOJ.YE_R~I:.C: V I 9 AUTHOR.ISED~BLDG~EVIC'];'ION/2009-20 1 0/ 1921 __ DATED 19.3.2010, WHICH IS IMPUGNED HERuEl.Na.AS ANNEXUREAA. " "
2) ISSUE A WRIT or PROHIBITIQHN"-..:: ;Af_GlXI1l\llS*lT:_« '' RESPONDENTS FROM TAKINGV-ANY.AC--TIQN:'i TE.§§{M§~3..' OF ANNEXURE--A AND ETC.
:I=*>I_ea'e>I< THESE WRIT PETITIoNs_"" _COl\l/IIl\l_VG'l': on FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING .iIfHIs,I)"AY}_[ 'THE ._COUIi{"l" THE FOLLOWING: l l "
Heard the learned eolunslel. for"th'e petitioners. The learrred Gotvernrrient.["~AdVocate takes notice for re5IJon(1'i'é"?1t's%%1." "The facts of the case are the same in all these fietitiaoris.
. A *- j'li'e.petitiolrIers claim that they have purchased A'plo«'Ir;'s'1of4fvaryi~n-g dimensions in a private residential layout r.'fo:"-rned in agricultural land after obtaining it ]con'y'ersion of the same for non-agricultural purposes. year 1988. '1' he layout is known as 'Pancharnuki .«€ IO layout'. The petitioners had purchased the same under several registered sale deeds in their respective<n'an'1es and revenue records stand in their names andvv.i:th.ey--r * have also obtained sanctioned construction to be put up on '"'tVhe.ir"'respective which are duly approved by' ._respon_derits_: it 'V V is their Case that wlien been"'iAnV-dpeaceful occupation of the said no.2 has, by notice the petitioners to remove on their respective sites footing that the constructions and therefore would require to l:'je._:vreztriovieddivtorthwith. it is this which is d it 'sought;-to besquestiodned in the present petition. h4eV"icVounsel for the petitioner would point out tha't_thev'purported notice at Annexure-A is issued under provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country ._"Planri'ing Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as "the Act" for g?
brevity). Though Ar1neXuremA is termed as a show"
cause notice. it is in fact a rnaridate which requ'ires--._tl1e petitioners to demolish and remove the * their respective sites. This is not in..c4or1for'rriitj,i ithe 2 provisions and the scheme construction can be charaeteris'ed__ as il~Ieg'al or '' unauthorised, which is not 1ri~ _ of. the v «perhiission and sanctions obtained' to law.
Therefore, in spite of such alleged" which provides for a nvotiee' todalviierson who violates the provisioEns!--of% up any unauthorised construction" andi.iupon such notice being issued, an ?--oug"ht to rbiiow under Rule 37 of the Karnataka lilfovznllPlanriingfiuthority Rules, 1965. In the instant case';«.__thev'procedure of holding an enquiry has not been R"4"-..Vvc'onipliedi----:with by the authorities and hence the l' i.im:p'ugned AnnexurewA is in violation of the law and Ihfprinciples of natural justice, as the respondent is {N proceeding to take the extreme measure of seeking demolition of the properties of the petitioners without complying with the prescribed procedure would also point out, apart from the K V' holding an enquiry or issuing an app1'opriate.__no_tice"on? any aileged violation, the ir;'1pug1ieci.. AnneXu.re?Av seeks to invoke Section of*.,th'e~v' Karnataka Municipalities Act, ineitplicable as the same cannot be i:>e""'eoi1ls;i-sl'tent with the scheme of _and€therefore§"'ti1is inchoate and inexplicablect oinihe of the respondent is sought be this writ petition.
The _(}oVe-rnineiiit Advocate would on the other sillbniit that""it"is open for the petitioners to file to the shoW--cause notice which is issued indicate to the competent authority that ll"-._l"'tl__iere Zno vioiation by the petitioners and the mere that the properties would be liable for demolition 5::
within the period prescribed therein. does not warrant interference by this Court at the stage of showecause notice and would submit that the petition ' and the petitioners be directed.:to»-reply it cause notice which would entai1't'1'fur.ther competent authority.
5. Given the and from a reading of the notice is unclear the provisions of The Karnataka Act as well as The Karnatalta' Act. Apart from this, the notice ought" to iiiciicateithat the petitioners are required . V. "'toVs'hovs%leau.sAe as toiuiwhy action ought not be taken for A*re1"noValVofVanyalleged construction which is in Violation of the pvrovisiions of the Karnataka Town and Country JP1an.ning it Act or such other law and therefore the e.'_'autiio'rities would be required to hold an enquiry which would conform to any action taken by the public /7 i E authority under law in respect of any alleged violation of any statute or rules thereunder. In the light of that as narrated above, there is no iridicatiofrii petitioner being granted adequate Cxfuu explaining the allegations, any;"«ac:t_ions respondents in consonance w_it1'1_pthe"notice at P;nn'e2&ure-- V' A would cause ,---graVe,~""in}'11s'tice. Therefore, notwithstanding the.' VA vadernolition, the respondents .hol3d as to any such allegedthe petitioners and thereaftelrll with law in taking furtherlsteps; are therefore restrained from, anyv.vpre'cipitatiVe action of demolition or . .l"eVic'tion'-'of the respondents in respect of the properties The petitioners shall be granted 10 daystime file their objections to Annexure--A in their Jresp_ective petition and the respondents shall thereafter _' proceed in accordance with law.
'iris 15 The petitions are disposed of with the above observations.
Shri. S.S.Kumman, Government AdvojCatt'e.:"'*.is permitted to file his memo of appe':2ira,rtp:e§p:~.. "
respondents 1, 2 and 3 w1'thir1 avpe"s'i--o.d of