Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner vs Smt Anita Rego W/O Mr Ivor Rego on 27 May, 2013
Author: H N Nagamohan Das
Bench: H.N. Nagamohan Das
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.N. NAGAMOHAN DAS
W.P NO. 35574/2010 (LB-RES)
C/W
W.P. NO. 35573/2010 (LB-RES)
IN W.P NO. 35574/2010 (LB-RES):
BETWEEN:
The Commissioner
The Mangalore City Corporation
Lalbagh, Mangalore
.... Petitioner
(By Sri S. Viswajith Shetty, Advocate)
AND:
1. Smt. Anita Rego
Aged about 57 years
W/o Mr. Ivor Rego
R/at Bendoorwell
Mangalore
2. Mr. T.K. Rajan
Aged about 54 years
S/o Late Kunhi Pillai
R/at Falnir, Mangalore
.... Respondents
(By Sri Jayakumar S.Patil, Sr. Advocate for
Sri. P.P. Hegde, Advocate, for R1 & R2)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227
of Constitution of India praying to quash the order vide
2
Annexure - A dated 25.03.2010 made in M.A. No.
14/2006 by the Court of Principal District Judge,
Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore.
IN W.P NO. 35573/2010 (LB-RES):
BETWEEN:
The Commissioner
The Mangalore City Corporation
Lalbagh, Mangalore
.... Petitioner
(By Sri S. Viswajith Shetty, Advocate)
AND:
1. Sri. Noel F.C. Pinto
Aged about 61 years
S/o Late Willianm Pinto
Chilimbi, Mangalore
2. Mrs. Jacintha Pinto
Aged about 65 years
W/o Sri. Noel F.C. pinto
R/at Joseph Villa
Chilimbi, Mangalore
.... Respondents
(By Sri Jayakumar S.Patil, Sr. Advocate for
Sri. P.P. Hegde, Advocate, for R1 & R2)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227
of Constitution of India praying to quash the order vide
Annexure - A dated 25.03.2010 made in M.A. No.
11/2006 by the Court of Principal District Judge,
Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore.
These petitions coming on for Orders this day, the
Court made the following:
3
ORDER
In these writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the orders dated 25.03.2010 in M.A.No.11/2006 and 14/2006 passed by the Principal District Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore.
2. Petitioners passed an order on 14.03.2006 and 17.03.2006 directing the respondents to demolish the construction put up by them since the same was without licence and sanctioned plan. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the petitioners the respondents filed appeals in M.A. No.11/2006 and M.A. No.14/2006 before the District Judge. Under the impugned common order the District Judge set aside the order passed by the petitioners and remanded the matter for reconsideration in accordance with law and also as per the provisions of Karnataka Town and Country Planning (Regulation of Unauthorized Construction and Development) Rules 2007. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the District Judge the petitioner is before this Court. 4
3. Heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire writ papers.
4. A reading of the impugned common order specifies that the petitioners have not taken into consideration the objections filed by the respondents. Further it is observed that in terms of Karnataka Town and Country Planning Rules 2007, the claim of the respondents for regularization was not considered. On these grounds the District Judge allowed the appeals filed by the respondents and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
5. The only grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that this Court in W.P. No.207/2008 vide order dated 15.07.2009 made an observation that the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Amended Act is the subject matter before the Division Bench and there is an interim order of stay. If that is so, the petitioners need not to comply the provisions of Karnataka Town and Country Planning Rules 2007. However, it is open 5 for the petitioners to pass appropriate orders in terms of the other observations made by the District Judge in the impugned order. The impugned order passed by the District Judge, do not call for interference. Accordingly, the writ petitions are hereby rejected.
6. The learned Counsel for the respondents in W.P. No.35573/2010 submit that in compliance of the order passed by the petitioners, they have demolished a portion of the building constructed by them. On the other hand learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the entire building is to be demolished. Be that as it may. It is open for the petitioners to make physical verification and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE HR