Varanga Grama Pachayath vs Assistant Executive Engineer on 24 June, 2014

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Varanga Grama Pachayath vs Assistant Executive Engineer on 24 June, 2014

Bench: L. Narayana Swamy

                            1




      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

          DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2014

                         BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY

       WRIT PETITION NO.29670 OF 2014 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN

VARANGA GRAMA PACHAYATH
MUNIYALU POST,
KARKALA TALUK,
REPRESENTED BY PANCHAYATH
DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
SADASHIVA SHERVEGAR

                                         .. PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SACHIN B.S. & SRI.ARUN SHYAM, ADVOCATES)


AND

  1. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
     P.W.D PORT AND INLAND
     WATER DEPT. NO.3, SUB-DIVISION,
     KARKALA-574104

  2. SMT. POORNIMA KINI
     AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
     W/O LATE PUNDALIKA KINI,
     GANESHA BHAVAN, ANDAR VILLAGE,
     KARKALA TALUK,
     UDUPI DISTRICT 574101

  3. SRI LAKSHMINARAYANA NAIK
     AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
                                  2




        S/O. VENKATESHA NAIK,
        "GANESHA BHAVAN" ANDAR VILLAGE,
        KARKALA TALUK,
        UDUPI DISTRICT 574101

   4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
      P.W.D. PORT & INLAND
      WATER DEPT UDUPI DIVISION,
      UDUPI 574101
                                              ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.D.NAGARAJ, AGA)

     THIS W.P FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DTD.11.6.2014 PASSED BY THE R-1 & R-4 VIDE ANNEX-A & B
AND ETC.

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                            ORDER

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner - Varanga Grama Panchayath praying to quash order dated 11.6.2014 issued by the first respondent and order dated 11.6.2014 issued by the 4th respondent whereby the petitioner is directed to demolish the unauthorized construction of bus stand & shop at Andarpet, Karkala Taluk.

2. The petitioner claims that it has put up construction after obtaining necessary permission and following the 3 procedure. It is stated in the impugned order that the construction in question is an unauthorized construction put up in the PWD road margin area. The petitioner is claiming right on the ground of existence of old structure for over a period of 40 years, which is not opposed by the respondents 2 & 3. The petitioner has not laid any independent right over the land area. The time-bound direction to demolish the structure is based on the letter dated 11.6.2014 issued by the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Port & Inland Water Department, Udupi Division, Udupi.

3. If the petitioner has any independent right over the construction in question, it has to be protected by availing such remedy that is available to them. In a writ petition such disputed questions cannot be gone into.

4. In the circumstances, the writ petition is devoid of merits and it is accordingly rejected without issuing notice to the respondents.

Sd/-

JUDGE AKD

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court