1/5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI WRIT PETITION No.43952 OF 2012 (LB-RES) BETWEEN:
D.S.Dwarakanath S/o late D.R.Srinivasa Murthy Aged about 54 years Residing at Venugopalaswamy Road, Chowka Devanahalli Town Bangalore Rural District 562110. …Petitioner (By:Mr.A.S.Mahesha, Advocate) AND:
1. Chief Officer Town Municipal Council Devanahalli 562110 Bangalore Rural District.
2. Deputy Commissioner Bangalore Rural District Bangalore 560 001.
3. D.S.Madhu Rao S/o Late D.R.Srinivasa Murthy Aged about 49 years Residing at Venugopalaswamy Road Chowka Devanahalli Town Bangalore Rural District 562110.
4. The Assistant Engineer Town Municipal Council Devanahalli Bangalore Rural District 562110.
5. Revenue Inspector Town Municipal Council Devanahalli 562 110 Bangalore Rural District. …Respondents (By:Mr.T.Sheshagiri Rao, Advocate for R1, R4 & R5 Mr.A.K.Vasanth, A.G.A. for R2 Mr.K.R.Anantha Murthy, Advocate for R3) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order passed by the R1 dated 5.10.10 in property katha No.109/116/124, new No.Katha No.58/136/129/1 Venugopala Swamy Temple Street, Circle, Devanahalli Town vide Annexure-V and the order passed by R2 dated 9.10.12 vide Annexure-W as the said order suffers from errors, which are apparent on the file of the record and etc.
This writ petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Mr.A.S.Mahesha, Advocate for Petitioner Mr.T.Sheshagiri Rao, Adv., for Respondent Nos.1, 4 & 5 Mr.A.K.Vasanth, A.G.A. for Respondent No.2 Mr.K.R.Anantha Murthy, Advocate for Respondent No.3 The petitioner – Mr.D.S.Dwarakanath has filed this petition in this Court challenging the impugned order Annexure-V dated 5.10.2010 passed by the Chief Officer of Town Municipal Council, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District for demolition of property and the appellate order confirming the said order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Annexure-W dated 9.10.2012. While entertaining this petition, the Cognate Bench of this Court on 25.10.2012 had stayed the order at Annexure-V dated 5.10.2010 initially for a period of four weeks, which interim order came to be continued from time to time and is continuing even by now.
2. Learned counsels at the bar have brought to the notice of the Court that it is a dispute of civil rights between two real brothers, i.e. Petitioner – Mr.D.S.Dwarakanath and Respondent No.3 – Mr.D.S.Madhu Rao, both being sons of late D.R.Srinivasa Murthy. They further brought to the notice of the Court that two civil suits are filed by Respondent No.3 – Mr.D.S.Madhu Rao, i.e. O.S.No.9/2008 (D.S.Madhu Rao v. D.S.Dwarakanath) for permanent injunction and O.S.No.745/2008 (D.S.Madhu Rao v. D.S.Dwarakanath) for declaration of rights which are pending in the Trial Court of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Devanahalli.
3. The Town Municipal Council, Devanahalli is not a party in the said civil suits. The said civil suits are in final stages, as the evidence of both the sides have been recorded by the Trial Court.
4. In the circumstances of the case and having heard learned counsels, this Court is satisfied that when civil suits for deciding the respective civil rights of the parties are pending in the Trial Court, the orders passed by the Respondent Authority – Town Municipal Council cannot be enforced and such orders directing the present petitioner to demolish the unauthorized construction would necessarily be governed and affected by the decree to be passed by the learned Trial Court determining the civil rights of these two brothers, who are plaintiff and defendant before the Court below.
5. This Court also finds no justification for allowing this writ petition to continue in this Court and the same deserves to be disposed of with a request to the learned Trial Court to expedite the trial of the civil suits pending before it, since they are pending for last nine years and are to stated to be at the final stages, expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months from today.
6. The interim order granted in the present petition shall continue till the disposal of the suits by the learned Trial Court.
With these observations this petition is disposed of. No costs.
VGR Sd/-
JUDGE