Karnataka High Court
Sri K S Eshwarappa vs The Commissioner on 14 February, 2022
Bench: Chief Justice, Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT APPEAL NO.109 OF 2022 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI K.S.ESHWARAPPA
S/O SHIVALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT 5TH MAIN ROAD
SIDDESWARA NAGAR
SHIVAMOGGA-577203
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI JAYAKUMAR S.PATIL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI PRUTHVI WODEYAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
CITY CORPORATION
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
SHIVAMOGGA-577201
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
CITY CORPORATION
SHIVAMOGGA-577201
3. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF LAND RECORDS
OLD D.C.OFFICE
BALARAJ URS ROAD
SHIVAMOGGA-577201
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.RAJASHEKAR, AGA)
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE
-2-
APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20/12/2021
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.
NO.20333/2021 AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard Mr.Jayakumar S.Patil, learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the appellant.
2. This intra-Court appeal has been filed
challenging the impugned judgment and order dated
20.12.2021 passed in Writ Petition No.20333/2021,
whereby the writ Court after hearing the
appellant/petitioner has dismissed the writ petition with
costs.
3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
appellant/petitioner submits that the writ Court has not
only dismissed the writ petition with costs, but has provided
that the respondent-Corporation shall take the impugned
order dated 09.11.2021, to its logical conclusion keeping in
mind the observations made in the writ petition and as
such, in compliance of the same, the Authorities of the
Corporation have immediately taken action to demolish the
building in question and yesterday half of the building has
been demolished.
4. It is not in dispute that the building in question
has been constructed without proper license from the
competent Authority. It is the case of the
appellant/petitioner that the appellant/petitioner had
applied for grant of license under Section 315 of the
Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (for short, 'the
Act, 1976') which remained pending with the Corporation
and no decision was communicated to the
appellant/petitioner. It is also submitted that the
appellant/petitioner has a remedy of challenging the
impugned order passed under Section 321 of the Act, 1976
by filing an appeal under Section 443(A) of the Act, 1976.
In case the appellant/petitioner is given liberty to file an
appeal, the appellant/petitioner would be satisfied.
However, the observations made by the writ Court may not
come in the way of the appellate Court while considering
the appeal of the appellant/petitioner.
5. Be that as it may, we, considering the peculiar
facts of this case and the prayer made by learned Senior
Advocate, dispose of this appeal at this stage with liberty to
the appellant/petitioner to file an appeal challenging the
impugned order dated 09.11.2021 before the appellate
forum. In case any such appeal is filed within ten days from
today, the Appellate Authority shall consider and decide the
same in accordance with law. It is open for the Appellate
Authority to consider the question of limitation while
considering the appeal, if any, preferred by the
appellant/petitioner. However, while considering the appeal,
the Appellate Authority shall not be influenced by any
observations made by the writ Court in its order dated
20.12.2021 passed in Writ Petition No.20333/2021.
6. The pending interlocutory applications does not
survive for consideration and are accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
KPS
