IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR W.P.NO.23227/2018 (LB RES) BETWEEN THE COMMISSIONER CITY CORPORATION OF MANGALURU, LAL BAGH ROAD, MANGALURU-575001.
(BY SRI K V NARASIMHAN, ADV.) AND 1. MISS FELCY ALVARES, AGED 74 YEARS, D/O. LATE. THOMAS ALVARES, AND LATE. MARY DSOUZA, NO. 1-90-580/A, KANDETTU HOUSE, KOTEKANI, DEREBAIL VILLAGE, ASHOKNAGAR POST, MANGALURU-575001.
2. MRS. MAVIS PERIERA W/O. LATE MAURIS PERIERA, AGED 68 YEARS, NO.503, FELICITY 1, BEJAI NEW ROAD, MANGALURU-575001.
... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE/QUASH THE ORDER DTD:22.1.2018 PASSED IN M.A.NO.33/2017 BY THE LEARNED IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALURU IS AT ANNEXURE-C.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
2. Petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 22.01.2018 passed by the IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, in M.A.No.33/2017.
3. The court below after appreciating the facts and more particularly taking note of the fact that respondent No.2 having made an application to the Tahsildar for payment of compensation in lieu of the damage suffered to the property on account of the natural calamity, has concluded that the work executed by respondent No.2 is indeed and amounts only to a repair and it does not amount to construction or re-construction as a portion of the ceiling and a portion of the compound wall had collapsed during the heavy rains and inundation.
4. The Appellate Court has rendered a finding of fact.
Such finding of fact is premised on the fact that the same has been inquired into and affirmed by the Tahsildar who has also proceeded to compensate respondent No.2 for the damage suffered. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any perversity in the reasoning or any error in the order passed. Hence, petition being bereft of merits stands dismissed.
5. If the petitioner is otherwise aggrieved, it is open to the petitioner to avail of such remedies as is available to him in law.
No order as to Costs.
Sd/- JUDGE KK CT-HR