Karnataka High Court
S Krishnananda Chatra vs The Assistant Executive Engineer on 26 September, 2022
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NO.3454/2021 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
S KRISHNANANDA CHATRA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
S/O GOVINDA CHATRA,
RESIDING IN VODERAHOBLI VILLAGE,
P O KUNDAPURA-576 201,
UDUPI DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI VYASA RAO K.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,
KUNDAPURA-576 201,
UDUPI DISTRICT.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,
UDUPI-576 101, UDUPI DISTRICT.
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
UDUPI-576 101, UDUPI DISTRICT.
4. THE GRAMA PANCHAYATH
SHANKARA NARAYANA,
SHANKARNARAYANA VILLAGE,
KUNDAPURA TALUK,
2
PO SHANKARNARAYANA,
UDUPI DISTRICT -576 227,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER.
5. PREMA
6. SHEKHARA K S
7. VITTAL K S
8. SAROJA
RESPONDENT NOS.5 TO 8 ARE MAJORS
AND CHILDREN OF NARAYANA K S,
AND ALL ARE RESIDING NEAR SHANKARANARAYANA
VYAVASAYA SOCIETY,
SHANKARNARAYANA VILLAGE,
KUNDAPURA TALUK, PO SHANKARNARAYANA,
UDUPI DISTRICT-576 227.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. DIVYA SHREE B.R., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R-5 TO R-8;
SRI R. SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT OR
ORDER REQUIRING THE RESPONDENTS HEREIN TO REMOVE THE
ENCROACHMENT OF ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION/ERECTION OF THE
COMPOUND WALL IN ROAD MARGIN IN SY.NO.202/1 OF
SHANKARANARAYANA VILLAGE, UDUPI DISTRICT AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
The petitioner submitted a representation with the respondents No.1 to 4 alleging that the respondents No.5 to 8 have put up construction on the road margin in Syl.No.202/1 of Shankaranarayana village, Kundapura Taluk, Udupi District, without obtaining building license from the 4th respondent as specified under Section 64 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said representation has not been considered.
2. The petitioner having alleged that the private respondents have put up construction without obtaining building license as specified under Section 64 of the Act, the respondents No.1 to 4 are under an obligation to consider the representation. However, the said respondents without valid reasons have not considered the representation.
3. Therefore, it is expedient to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents No.2 and 4 to consider the representation/notice dated 6.5.2020 vide Annexure-B submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of 4 certified copy of this order after notifying the petitioner and respondents No.5 to 8.
Sd/-
JUDGE BKM