Karnataka High Court
V Basavarajappa vs The Regional Commissioner And Anr on 15 April, 2024
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2983
WP No. 226765 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 226765 OF 2020 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
V BASAVARAJAPPA
S/O V. KARIBASAPPA,
AGE: 83 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O PLOT NO. 14, SHOP NO. 108,
RAJENDRA GUNJ, RAICHUR,
DIST: RAICHUR- 584102.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER
MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA,
KALABURAGI, DIST: KALABURAGI-585101
Digitally signed
by RENUKA 2. THE COMMISSIONER,
Location: High CITY MUNICIPALITY RAICHUR,
Court Of DIST: RAICHUR-584102
Karnataka
3. SMT. MANJULA W/O S.K. NAGIREDDY
AGE: 46 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD
R/O H.NO. 9-18-56 OLD, 9-18-58 NEW MADDIPETH,
RAICHUR-584102.
REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY
HOLDER
SRI. S.K. NAGIREDDY S/O KISHNAREDDY,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O H.NO.9-18-56 OLD 9-18-58 NEW MADDIPETH,
RAICHUR-584102.
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2983
WP No. 226765 of 2020
(BY SMT. MAYA T. R, HCGP FOR R1;
SMT. AMBIKA PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. GOURISH S. KHASHAMPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI R.S. SIDHAPURKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 13.11.2020 BEARING NO. £À¸g À ¹/ B.L NO.
À Á/PÀlÖq-
12604/2020-21/BP PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2,
VIDE, VIDE ANNEXURE-M AND ORDER DATED 17.10.2020
BEARING NO. ¸ÀA/PÀA/¥ÁæDPÀ/¥ÀÄgÀ¸¨
À És-2/124/2020-21/21069 PASSED BY
THE RESPONDENT NO.1, VIDE ANNEXURE-N.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri Mahantesh Patil, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Smt. Ambika Patil, advocate on behalf of Sri
Gourish S.Khashampur, learned counsel for respondent
No.2, Sri R.S.Sidhapurkar, learned counsel for respondent
No.3 and Smt. Maya T.R., learned High Court Government
Pleader for respondent No.1.
2. The writ petition is filed with the following prayer:
(i) issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the
impugned order dated 13.11.2020 bearing No. £À¸g
À Á/PÀlq
Ö À-¹/
B.L No. 12604/2020-21/BP passed by the respondent
no.2, vide Annexure-M and order dated 17.10.2020
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2983
bearing No. ¸ÀA/PÀA/¥ÁæDPÀ/¥ÀÄgÀ¸¨
À sÉ-2/124/2020-21/21069 passed by
the respondent No.1, vide Annexure-N."
3. The 3rd respondent claims that there exists a road
formed in Municipal Layout formed in Sy.Nos.240-245 of
Raichur. An injunction suit came to be filed by the 3rd
respondent in O.S.No.181/1999 which came to be
dismissed, against which 3rd respondent herein filed an
appeal before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.38/2009.
Said appeal also came to be dismissed on contest.
4. In the meanwhile, 2nd respondent has passed an
Order vide Annexure-N to stop the construction to be
carried out by petitioner herein on the ground that 3rd
respondent has approached the Regional Commissioner
who, in turn has directed the 2nd respondent to consider
and pass orders on the representation of the 3rd
respondent.
5. Sri Mahantesh Patil, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that when the Civil Court has passed an
order, same is binding on the Municipal Authorities and
therefore, no action could have been initiated against the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2983
petitioner based on the representation of the 3rd
respondent, by the 2nd respondent and sought for allowing
the writ petition.
6. Per contra, Sri R.S.Sidhapurkar, learned counsel for
3rd respondent supports the impugned Order at Annexure-
N, so also the Smt.Ambika Patil, learned counsel for 2nd
respondent.
7. In view of the rival contentions of the parties,
perused the material on record, meticulously.
8. Admittedly, injunction suit came to be filed by 3rd
respondent on the ground that there exists a municipal
road. There is a categorical finding recorded by the Civil
Court stating that no such municipal layout existing in
Sy.No.240-245 of Raichur village. Against the said
judgment of the Civil Court, 3rd respondent filed
R.A.No.38/2009. The said appeal also, on contest, came
to be dismissed.
9. Therefore, it was not open for the 2nd respondent to
pass order at Annexure-N, more so, when 2nd respondent
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2983
was party before the Civil Court. Therefore, Annexures-M
and N are illegal and are nothing but high handed action
on the part of the respondents.
10. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Annexures-M
and N are quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
kcm
