Karnataka High Court
Rukmini W/O Late Parushram Birje vs The City Corporation Belagavi on 14 February, 2023
Author: S.R. Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R. Krishna Kumar
-1-
WP No. 100474 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 100474/2023 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
RUKMINI W/O LATE PARUSHRAM BIRJE,
AGE :70 YEARS, OCC.: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O MAHADAVPUR, TQ AND DIST BELAGAVI-590001.
- PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SADIQ N GOODWALA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE CITY CORPORATION, BELAGAVI
BY ITS COMMISSIONER-590 001.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (REVENUE),
CITY CORPORATION, BELAGAVI-590001.
3. THE TALUKA SURVEYOR,
CITY CORPORATION, BELAGVI-590001.
4. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS,
BELAGAVI -DIST. 590001.
5. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS,
DIST. BELAGAVI-590001.
- RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3,
Digitally signed by SRI PRASHANT V. MOGALI, HCGP FOR R4 & R5)
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
Location: High THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
Court of Karnataka, NOTICE DATED NIL IN NO.TQ/PO533/2022-23 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT
Dharwad NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE-D & WRX,
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
WP No. 100474 of 2023
ORDER
In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned notice at Annexure-D dated nil and for other reliefs.
2. A perusal of the material on record, in particular, the impugned notice at Annexure-D dated nil, will indicate that the same has been issued pursuant to a complaint stated to have been given by the respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner, Belagavi City Corporation followed by order dated 17.12.2022 stated to have passed by the respondent No.5-DDLR. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though the petitioner is one of the persons referred to in the impugned notice, the petitioner was neither notified nor given any opportunity prior to respondent No.5-DDLR passing the order dated 17.12.2022 pursuant to which the impugned notice is issued and consequently the impugned notice deserves to be quashed.
3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No.1 to 3 and the learned HCGP appearing on behalf of the respondents No.4 and 5 submit that there is no merit in the writ petition and prayed to dismiss the petition. -3- WP No. 100474 of 2023
4. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, prior to acting upon the complaint dated 14.12.2022 and passing an order dated 17.12.2022 which culminated in the impugned notice at Annexure-D dated nil directing survey to be conducted on 25.01.2023, petitioner was not notified before a decision to direct survey was taken by the DDLR on 17.12.2022 coupled with the short/ small gap of time between 14.12.2022 and 17.12.2022 which clearly indicates that the impugned notice is clearly violative of principles of natural justice and the same deserves to be quashed. The contention of the respondent No.2- Corporation that the petition is premature since the same is filed only against a survey notice cannot be accepted in view of violation of principles of natural justice referred to supra. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned notice deserves to be quashed.
5. In the result, I pass the following order.
ORDER
i) Writ Petition is allowed;
ii) Impugned notice at Annexure-D dated NIL is quashed; -4- WP No. 100474 of 2023
iii) The respondent No.5-DDLR is directed to notify the petitioner and all other concerned parties, hear them and pass appropriate orders / take appropriate decision pursuant to the complaint dated 14.12.2022 submitted by the respondent No.2 and proceed further in accordance with law;
Sd/-
JUDGE BVV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54