Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

A. Janaki Devi W/O A. Venkatraj vs The State Of Karnataka & Ors on 3 April, 2013

Author: K Sreedhar Rao

Bench: K.Sreedhar Rao

                            1




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT

                        GULBARGA

           DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2013

                         BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SREEDHAR RAO


          WRIT PETITION NO.85969/2012 (LB-RES)


BETWEEN:

A. JANAKI DEVI W/O A. VENKATARAJ
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD
R/O VASAVI NAGAR,
RAICHUR- 584 103.

                                            ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI: R.S.SIDDAPURKAR, ADV.)


AND:

1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
     REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY
     VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560 001.

2.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
     DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
     REPRESENTED BY UNDER SECRETARY
     VIDHANANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE -560 001.
                                    2




3.   THE COMMISSIONER
     RAICHUR URBAN DEVELOPMENT
     AUTHORITY, O/O URBAN DEVELOPMENT
     AUTHORITY MAIN ROAD
     RAICHUR 584 103 DIST RAICHUR .

4.   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, RAICHUR
     O/O DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, RAICHUR 585 103
     DIST: RAICHUR.

5.   THE COMMISSIONER CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
     RAICHUR
     O/O CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, RAICHUR 585 103,
     DIST: RAICHUR.

6.    THE SECRETARY GRJUHA NIRMANA SAHAKARA
      SANGHA (REGD)
     JAWAHAR NAGAR, RAICHUR- 584 103, DIST: RAICHUR...
                                                 RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, GA FOR R.1, 2 & 4 ; SRI CHAND
ABDUL RUBB, ADV. FOR R.3 & 5; R.6 SERVED
UNREPRESENTED)


     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT OR ORDER OF DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 11.9.12 IN £À C E
127 UÀÄ C ¥Áæ 2010 ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ   ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1
WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE -C AND ETC.

                                 ****
      THIS PETITION COMING ON PRL. HEARING IN 'B' GROUP
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
                                 3




                               ORDER

Petitioner is the allottee of the site by the Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangh Niiyamit, Raichur, now called as Jawahar Nagar area. The allotment of the site in favour of petitioner was made between the years 1960-61 to 2004. The petitioner has constructed house with the permission of Urban Development Authority and City Municipality and residing there. The layout plan approved by the Urban Development / 2nd respondent in the first instance in the year 1970 and later on modified plan came to be approved in the years 1995 and 2004. The modification largely pertains to reduction and modification of civic amenity and park area.

2. The 1st respondent has cancelled the modified resolution of the respondent No.2 permitting modification of layout plan of the years 1995 and 2004 and has directed that the house constructed by the petitioner is to be demolished and the civic amenity and park area should be restored as earmarked in the original layout plan of 1960. 4

3. It is the contention of the petitioner that some portion of the land of the society was encroached by the outsiders. The encroachment was removed. The said area has been included in the layout. The width of the road originally designed at 60 feet. The said width was not the minimum legal requirement and it was more than the legal requirement. Therefore, width of the road is reduced to 30 feet and for park and other civic amenity purpose, the area of the land is reduced to meet only minimum requirement of law. In the excess of land found thereafter the sites are formed and allotted. Therefore, allotment in favour of petitioner is not illegal and that there is no violation of provision with regard to civic amenity site. It is the contention that the 3rd respondent has passed the impugned order without notice to the interested parties who are affected by the order. Therefore seek quashing of the order of the Government dated 11.9.2012.

5

4. Keeping in view the submissions made at the bar and the facts and material, the order dated 11.09.2012 is set aside and afresh order to be made after hearing the petitioner and the affected parties.

5. Petitioner is at liberty to plead all the legal contentions permissible in the law before the 1st respondent in the inquiry. Accordingly, petitions are disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE vbc*