Karnataka High Court
The Secretary vs Sri K M Shivanna on 14 September, 2012
Author: B.S.Patil
Bench: B.S.Patil
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL
R.P.No.849/2012
IN
W.P.No.13135/2012
BETWEEN:
THE SECRETARY
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE
HASSAN. ... PETITIONER
(By Sri.MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY, ADV.)
AND
1. SRI K M SHIVANNA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
S/O LATE K S MALLAPPA
RESIDING AT RAYARA
KOPPALU VILLAGE
K HOSAKOTE HOBLI
ALUR TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPT OF CO-OPERATION
M S BUILDING?
BANGALORE 560 001
3. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE
NO.6, 2ND RAJBHAVAN ROAD,
BANGALORE 560 001. ... RESPONDENTS
2
This review petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC
praying to review the order dated 31.5.2012 passed in W.P.
No.13135/2012 on the file of High Court of Karnataka,
Bangalore and etc.
This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court
made the following:
ORDER
1. This review petition is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC seeking to review the order passed by this Court on 31.05.2012 in W.P.No.13135/2012.
2. The main contention sought to be urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the prayer made is that the writ petitioner has wrongly represented before this Court that there was a sanction plan and he was putting up construction in the property pursuant to such sanction plan. Whereas, it was a specific case of the respondent-APMC while issuing the notice impugned in the writ petition that there was no sanction plan obtained by the petitioner and without such plan, the petitioner was illegally putting up construction in the property allotted to him.
3
3. In order to test the veracity of this submission, I have perused the notice impugned in the writ petition which was produced at Annexure-J along with the writ petition. In the said notice, it is not stated that the writ petitioner was putting up construction without obtaining any sanction plan. On the other hand, there is a specific reference made to the approval given by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Market Development, Arasikere as per his letter dated 12.03.2012 wherein there was no provision made for putting up construction of a cellar, despite the same, writ petitioner was putting up construction of cellar portion hence the unauthorised construction was required to be demolished. It is in this background, this Court having noticed that there was sanction given wherein no provision was made to put up basement, the petitioner was called upon to adhere to the sanction plan.
4. The writ petitioner gave an undertaking before this Court that he would close the cellar portion and will not utilise the same provided he was permitted to put up further construction as per the sanctioned plan and the 3rd 4 respondent desists from resorting to demolition of the construction put up. In reply to this undertaking, learned counsel for the APMC submitted that if the petitioner were to put up further construction in accordance with the sanction plan, there would be no impediment for the disposal of the writ petition permitting the petitioner to put up construction strictly in accordance with the sanction plan. It is in this background that the writ petition was allowed in part and the petitioner was permitted to put up construction in terms of the sanction plan by closing the cellar portion.
5. Therefore, it is not open to the 3rd respondent now to turn around and say that the plan was not sanctioned by the Committee and therefore the petitioner was not entitled to put up any construction and hence, the order passed by this Court has to be reviewed. The review petition filed lacks bonafides inasmuch as an attempt is made to overcome the stand that was specifically taken before this Court after the writ petitioner gave an undertaking that he would close down the cellar portion 5 provided he was permitted to proceed with the remaining construction in accordance with the plan sanctioned.
Therefore, I do not find any merit in the review petition. Hence, the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE VP