Karnataka High Court
Smt. Bharati W/O Siddanna Nalawad vs The Deputy Commissioner on 29 November, 2024
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:17565
WP No. 106315 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 106315 OF 2024 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. BHARATI W/O. SIDDANNA NALAWAD,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE,
R/O. KOPPAL, TQ: AND DISTRICT: KOPPAL-583231.
2. RAJAGURU BASALINGAMMA
W/O. VEERABHADRAYYA HIREMATH,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: GOVT. EMPLOYEE,
R/O. GAVISHREE NAGAR, 3RD CROSS,
KOPPAL-583231.
3. SMT. LALITA W/O. NOORANDAPPA UPPIN,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. GAVISHREE NAGAR, 3RD CROSS,
KOPPAL-583231.
VN 4. SMT. BHAGYALAKSHMI W/O. SURESH JADHAV,
BADIGER AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
Location: HIGH R/O. GAVISHREE NAGAR, 3RD CROSS,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
KOPPAL-583231.
BENCH ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI CHANDRASHEKHAR R. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE.)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
KOPPAL, DISTRICT: KOPPAL-583231.
2. THE COMMISSIONER, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
KOPPAL-583231.
3. MALLAYYA S/O. DODDAYYA SALIMATH,
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED TEACHER,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:17565
WP No. 106315 of 2024
R/O. GAVISHREE NAGAR, 3RD CROSS,
KOPPAL-583231.
4. THE JUNIOR ENGINEER,
COMMISSIONER CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
KOPPAL-583231.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, ADDL. GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR
R1;
SRI BHUSHAN KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R4.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
MANDAMUS AGAINST THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER THE
REPRESENTATIONS OF THE PETITIONERS DATED 01.06.2024,
01.08.2024, 12.08.2024, 31.08.2024 AND 24.09.2024, AS PER
ANNEXURE-A TO A4 AND ALSO TO CONSIDER THE
REPRESENTATIONS OF PETITIONERS DATED 03.09.2024 AND
24.09.2024 AS PER ANNEXURE-A5 AND A6 BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.1, AND ETC.,.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned Addl. Government Advocate appears on behalf of respondent No.1. Learned counsel Sri Bhushan Kulkarni represents respondents No.2 and 4.
2. This petition is filed by the petitioners seeking a writ of mandamus against respondent No.2 to consider the -3- NC: 2024:KHC-D:17565 WP No. 106315 of 2024 representation dated 01.06.2024, 01.08.2024, 12.08.2024, 31.08.2024, 24.09.2024, 03.09.2024 and 24.09.2024 as per Annexures-A to A.6 and pass suitable orders.
3. Service of notice of respondent No.3 is awaited. Since no adverse order is being passed as against respondent No.3 herein and merely a petition for consideration of representations made by the petitioners, this Court proceeds to pass the order.
4. The grievance of petitioners is that respondent No.3 is illegally constructing residential building on plot No.22, in Sy.No.229/1, measuring 39' x 29' situated at Gavishree Nagar, 3rd cross, Koppal, by encroaching public road abutting East to West in between Plot No.22 and 25.
5. It is the case of petitioners that respondent No.3 obtained permission for construction from respondent No.2 dated 05.06.2007. Respondent No.3 had filed a civil suit in O.S.No.41/2008 seeking perpetual injunction against some third party and against his vendor and in the said suit a compromise petition came to be filed on 19.04.2008 before -4- NC: 2024:KHC-D:17565 WP No. 106315 of 2024 the Lok Adalat by filing an application under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC and the said compromise entered into before the Lok Adalat, and it is stated in the compromise petition at Annexure-E that the plaintiff had agreed that he would not undertake or put up construction over the Government road towards western and southern side of the plot subject to the terms and conditions of the permission granted by the authority i.e., the Commissioner, City Municipal Council.
6. It is the grievance of the petitioners that the petitioners have also purchased plots in the same residential area and due to the illegal construction and encroachment by respondent No.3, it is affecting the rights of the petitioners. Petitioners made a representation to respondent No.4 authority to take into consideration the unauthorized illegal construction and encroachment made on the road and to initiate action against the respondent No.3 which has not been considered and hence the petitioners are before this Court.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that respondent No.2 has issued a notice to -5- NC: 2024:KHC-D:17565 WP No. 106315 of 2024 respondent No.3 on 03.10.2024 with regard to illegal construction, without permission in the residential premises, but however, no action is taken by respondents No.2 and 4 against the 3rd respondent. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court seeking a writ of mandamus.
8. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 4 submits that already notice has been issued to respondent No.3 with regard to the unauthorized illegal construction and the representation so made by the petitioners would be considered in accordance with law and suitable action would be taken if reasonable time is granted.
9. Under the circumstances, this petition could be disposed of by a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the representations by keeping in view Annexure-K already issued by respondents No.2 and 4 as against respondent No.3 and take immediate action to stop further construction if a conclusion is arrived that there is an illegal construction put up by respondent No.3. Therefore, I pass the following:
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:17565 WP No. 106315 of 2024 ORDER
i) The petition is allowed.
ii) A writ of mandamus is issued directing respondent No.2 to consider the representations of the petitioners dated 01.06.2024, 01.08.2024, 12.08.2024, 31.08.2024, 24.09.2024, 03.09.2024 and 24.09.2024 as per Annexures-A to A.6 and pass suitable orders within an outer limit of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order, in accordance with law.
iii) Since already notice is issued vide Annexure-K by respondent No.2 to respondent No.3, the further construction shall be stopped forthwith, till further/final action is taken by respondent No.2.
Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE KGK-para 1 to 4.
MRK-para 5 to end.
CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 65