Karnataka High Court
Satyanarayan vs The Commisisoner And Anr on 21 November, 2024
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8691
WP No. 202965 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 202965 OF 2024 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
SATYANARAYAN S/O MUKUNDBHAT JOSHI,
AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. LEGAL PRACTITIONER,
R/O PLOT NO. 299, JEWARGI COLONY, KALABURAGI
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. KULKARNI JYOTIBAI SEETARAM, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE COMMISISONER,
KALABURAGI CITY CORPORATION,
Digitally signed
by SUMITRA KALABURAGI
SHERIGAR
Location: HIGH 2. THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER
COURT OF ZONE-1, KALABURAGI CITY CORPORATION,
KARNATAKA
I-WAN-SHAHI ROAD, KALABURAGI
...RESPONDENTS
(SRI. D.P.AMBEKAR, ADV. FOR RESONDENTS)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, BY THE ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER
PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO,A)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8691
WP No. 202965 of 2024
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ENDORSEMENT DATED 10.09.2024 BEARING NO. GLB-LBPAS-
19617/24-25/BP PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 VIDE
ANNEXURE-G IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY, ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
1. In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
(a) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned endorsement dated 10.09.2024 bearing BLB-
LBPAS-19617/24-25/BP passed by the respondent No.1 vide Annexure-G, in the interest of justice and equity.
(b) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing to reconsider the representation of petitioner in Application No.GLB-LBPAS-19617/24-25/BP for building permit to plot No.55, with property ID 116629, survey No.19/A, 19/2, X 19/3 having GSB L10LB0000390397. The copy of the same is produced herewith at Annexure-F.
2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that one Sheelabai W/o. K. D. Gururaj was the owner of the subject plot bearing No.55 having acquired the same vide registered sale deed dated 06.01.1999 executed in her favor. Under Registered sale deed dated 28.08.2008, the said -3- NC: 2024:KHC-K:8691 WP No. 202965 of 2024 Sheelabai sold the subject property in favor of the petitioner herein in whose favor the Khata in respect of the schedule subject plot was mutated by the Respondent-Corporation. However, the petitioner submitted an application for approval of building plan for the purpose of construction, the respondents issued the impugned endorsement rejecting the request of the petitioner for approval of building plan on the ground that the layout in which the subject plot was situated was not formed by the Respondent-Corporation, but had been formed by the Mandal Panchayath. Aggrieved by the impugned endorsement dated 12.09.2024, the petitioner is before this court by way of the present petition.
3. A perusal of the impugned endorsement will indicate that, the sole reason for which the respondents have refused to approve the building plan in favor of the petitioner in relation to the subject plot is by stating that the layout in which the subject plot was situated was formed by the Mandal Panchayath. In this context, the respondents failed to consider and appreciate that, after the petitioner purchased the subject plot in the year 2008, the Khata had been -4- NC: 2024:KHC-K:8691 WP No. 202965 of 2024 mutated in favor of the petitioner by the respondent- Corporation themselves who had issued Khata extract in favor of the petitioner; it is also an undisputed fact as fairly admitted by the learned counsel for the respondents- Corporation that the subject plot comes within the territorial jurisdiction of the respondents-corporation which is the local authority/local board/local body insofar as the subject plot is concerned. It is therefore clear that the Respondent- Corporation was the proper/competent authority to sanction the building plan and not the Mandal Panchayath as erroneously stated in the impugned endorsement which deserves to be set aside and the matter remitted back to the Respondents for reconsideration of the petitioner's application afresh within the stipulated time frame.
4. Accordingly, I pass the following:
(i) The writ petition is allowed;
(ii) The impugned endorsement at Annexure-G, dated 12.09.2024 is hereby set aside.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8691 WP No. 202965 of 2024
(iii) The matter is remitted back to the concerned respondents for reconsideration of the petitioner's application at Annexure-F, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, bearing in mind the observations made in the present order.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SVH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7