S.V.K.K.B.A. Lakshma Rao vs T.Kumara Swamy And 6 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 3559 Tel

    THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                     AND
         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY


              WRIT APPEAL Nos.545, 551 & 582 of 2021

COMMON JUDGMENT:      (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)




     All the three writ appeals are arising out of common order

dated 14.09.2021 passed in W.P.Nos.15303 & 21322 of 2020 and

15890 of 2021 by the learned Single Judge.

     The facts of the case reveal that there was a serious dispute

between T. Kumara Swamy (General Secretary, Mudiraj Employees

Welfare Cultural Society, Kollapur) and S.V.K.K.B.A. Lakshma Rao.

Sri Lakshma Rao was claiming ownership in respect of Block No.10

and it was alleged by him that the Mudiraj Employees Welfare

Cultural Society (for short, "the Society") obtained building

permission in respect of Block No.3 and he is constructing on Block

No.10.    Sri Lakshma Rao has submitted a complaint on

10.08.2020

.

The undisputed facts also reveal that the Society applied for

building permission on 15.11.2020 and the same was granted on

15.11.2020. As a serious dispute arose in respect of construction

over Block No.10, the permission granted was cancelled without

granting any opportunity of hearing to the Society. In those

circumstances, the writ petition preferred by the Society has been

allowed by the common order. Not only this, out of the other two

writ petitions, the writ petition filed by Sri Lakshma Rao was

dismissed and the writ petition filed by Sri T. Kumara Swamy was

disposed of by the common order. However, the dispute, which is

remained before this Court was whether the Society was raising

construction over Block No.10 or Block No.3. The Kollapur

Municipality during the pendency of the present writ appeals has

passed an order on 15.11.2021 and they have arrived at a

conclusion that the deemed permission for construction was

obtained in respect of Block No.3, whereas construction was

initiated in Block No.10 and therefore, as there is difference in

schedule of properties and location, the permission deserves to be

cancelled and it has been accordingly cancelled. Meaning thereby,

the common order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to

be set aside and it is accordingly set aside with a liberty to the

parties to avail the other alternative remedies by taking recourse to

the procedure prescribed under law.

With the aforesaid, the writ appeals are disposed of.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There

shall be no order as to costs.

__________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

______________________________ A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J

18.11.2021 ES