Karnataka High Court
Ashok S/O Hanamantappa Deepali vs The Taluka Municipal Office on 4 November, 2024
Author: H.T.Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16083-DB
WA No. 100152 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
WRIT APPEAL NO. 100152 OF 2024 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
ASHOK S/O HANAMANTAPPA DEEPALI,
AGE. 57 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
JUNIPETH, RAMDURG,
R/O. RAMDURG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591123.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA A. PUROHIT, ADV.)
AND:
THE TALUKA MUNICIPAL OFFICE,
RAMDURG, R/O. RAMDURG,
Digitally signed
DIST. BELAGAVI-591123,
by MANJANNA E REP. BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER.
Location: HIGH ...RESPONDENT
COURT OF
KARNATAKA (BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADV.)
DHARWAD
BENCH
Date: 2024.11.07 THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
11:07:58 +0530
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO, SET-ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 18.04.2024, PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN W.P. NO.102284/2024 AS NULL AND VOID BY ALLOWING
THE WRIT APPEAL.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16083-DB
WA No. 100152 of 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD)
Even though the matter is posted for orders on office
objections, the same is taken up for final disposal.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was
the owner of the land bearing CTS No.3081/2, measuring 35.09
square meters, situated at Junipeth, Ramdurg. The adjacent
owner of the said property one Sri.Vasanta Hanchate filed a
complaint to the respondent taking action against the appellant
for removal of illegal constructions of the building in the above
said property. Pursuant to same, the respondent - Town
Municipal Council issued a notice on 17.09.2022. Being
aggrieved by the said notice, the appellant filed a writ petition
before this Court in W.P. No.102109/2023. This Court on
04.12.2023 has passed the following order:
"Writ petition is hereby dismissed. However,
the petitioner is given permission to remove the
construction which is put up in violation of the
sanctioned plan and make necessary application to
the respondent for grant of fresh sanction plan and
put up additional construction only after receiving
approval from the respondent in the manner known
to law."
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16083-DB
3. Thereafter, the appellant did not remove the
unauthorized construction on the above said land, as per the
undertaken given before this Court. Therefore, the respondent
issued one more notice on 04.03.2024 vide Annexure - M,
directing the appellant to remove the illegal constructions
within 30 days. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant
filed another writ petition before this Court in W.P.
No.102284/2024. This Court by order dated 18.04.2024 has
dismissed the writ petition on the ground that in the earlier
round of litigation, this Court has directed to remove the
construction put up by the appellant in the said land and also
imposed a cost of Rs.25,000/-. Being aggrieved by that order,
the appellant is before this Court.
4. This Court in the earlier round of litigation in W.P.
No.102109/2023 has dismissed the writ petition with a
direction to the appellant to remove the construction which is
put up in violation of the sanction plan and thereafter make a
necessary application to the respondent for grant of fresh
sanction plan and the said order has attained finality. Since the
appellant has not complied with the order passed by this Court
in W.P. No.102109/2023 dated 04.12.2023, the respondent -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16083-DB
authority has issued a fresh notice on 04.03.2024. Instead of
complying the earlier decision issued by this Court, the
appellant has challenged the same writ petition before this
Court in W.P. No.102284/2024. This Court considering the
earlier order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.
No.102109/2023, has rightly dismissed the writ petition.
Therefore, we find no error or illegalities in the order
passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ
appeal stands dismissed. So far as imposing cost of
Rs.25,000/- is concerned, in the interest of justice, the same is
set aside.
However, at this stage, the learned counsel appearing for
the appellant has submitted that the adjacent land owner
Sri.Vasant Hanchate has also put up a construction violating
the building plan issued by the competent authority. To that
effect, the appellant has given a complaint and no action has
been taken against the said adjacent owner. Under these
circumstances, the respondent is directed to consider the
complaint filed by the appellant against the said adjacent owner
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16083-DB
Sri.Vasant Hanchate in accordance with law, if not already
taken any action.
Sd/-
(H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
RSH
