IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.52283/2019 (LB-RES) Between:
Sri C.J. Nawab Jahn, S/o Ameer Jaan, Aged about 71 years, R/at Sharieff Galli, Chikkamagalur Town. … Petitioner (By Sri K. Ravishankara, Advocate) And:
1. The Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, State of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore – 560 001.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Chikkamagalur District, Chikkamagalur – 577 101.
3. The Assistant Commissioner, Chikkamagalur Sub-Dvn., Chikkamagalur – 577 101.
4. The Tahasildar, Chikkamagalur Taluk, Chikkamagalur – 577 101.
5. The Commissioner, City Municipal Council, Chikkamagalur Town – 577 101. … Respondents (By Smt. Prathima Honnapura, AGA for R1 to R4; Sri A. Nagarajappa, Advocate for R5) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for the entire records in respect impugned order dated 29.11.2019 at Annexure-L from the office of R-5 and set aside and quash the impugned order dated 29.11.2019 at Annexure-L passed by R-5 consequently direct the R-5 follow the procedure prescribed under Section 187 of the KMC Act and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing ‘B’ group this day, the Court, made the following:
ORDER Issue notice to the respondents.
Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondents 1 to 4.
Sri. A. Nagarajappa, learned counsel accepts notice for respondent No.5.
2. Petitioner is stated to be the owner in possession of property comprised in Sy.Nos.150 and 149/1 situated at Uppalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Chikkamagalur Taluk. It is stated that the petitioner has put up construction, which according to respondent No.4 is not in accordance with the applicable law and regulations. Accordingly, proceedings under Section 187 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’) had been initiated. Insofar as the initiation of said proceedings and as regards the provisional order under section 187(7) of the Act, petitioner herein had approached this Court in W.P.No.50769/2019 which came to be disposed of on 18.11.2019. This Court had reserved liberty to the 5th respondent herein to take action strictly in compliance with the procedure under Section 187(7) and (9) of the Act.
3. The impugned order at Annexure-L has been passed by the 5th respondent and it is submitted by the learned counsel for the 5th respondent that subsequent to the order of this Court dated 18.11.2019 representation given by the petitioner on 21.11.2019 as well as the earlier representation dated 14.11.2019 have been considered and an order has been passed strictly in accordance with Section 187 of the Act. It is also contended that as against the impugned order, petitioner has remedy by way of an appeal under Section 343(1)(ii) of the Act.
4. In light of availability of alternative remedy and also in light of the contentions raised, it would be appropriate to relegate the petitioner to avail of the remedy under Section 343(1)(ii) of the Act as regards the impugned order at Annexure-L. However, it is made clear that if an appeal is filed within ten days from the date of receipt of a certified coy of this order before the Municipal Council under Section 343(1)(ii) of the Act, request for interim relief made by the petitioner would be considered expeditiously within a period of not later than two weeks from the date of presenting the appeal.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed off keeping open the contentions of both parties while relegating the petitioner to avail of the alternative remedy available under section 343(1)(ii) of the Act as regards the impugned order.
Sd/- JUDGE VP