IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.50769/2019 (LB – RES) BETWEEN:
Sri. C.J. Nawab Jahn, S/o. Ameer Jaan, Aged about 71 years, R/at Sharieff Galli, Chikkamagalur Town – 577 101. …Petitioner (By Sri. Ravi Shankar K., Advocate) AND:
1. The Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, State of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Chikkamagalur District, Chikkamagalur – 577 101.
3. The Assistant Commissioner, Chikkamagalur Sub – Division, 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 issue writ of mandamus against respondent No.5 to consider the representation dated 18.10.2019 at Annexure – H consequently to fix the boundaries and demarcate the properties before passing and proceedings in any matter and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Petitioner stating to be the owner of property comprised in Sy.No.150 and 149/1 situated at Uppalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Chikkamagalur Taluk, has challenged the notice at Annexure – F. It is noticed that as per Annexure – F petitioner has been called upon to be present in the enquiry proceedings relating to removal of the unauthorized construction on the ground that the area of construction falls within Sy.No.151, which belongs to the government. The petitioner submits that he has furnished reply as per Annexure – G and has also addressed a representation at Annexure – H.
2. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 submits that the reply at Annexure – G and also representation at Annexure – H would be considered and further proceedings would be proceeded with strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 187(7) and 187(9) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 after affording an opportunity to the petitioner in accordance with law.
3. In the light of the said undertaking, petition is disposed of as requiring no further orders. However, it is made clear that any action to be taken by respondent No.5 would be strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 187 (7) and (9) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964.
Needless to state that till proceedings are concluded and findings recorded in the manner as contemplated above, in the interregnum, unless case is made out exercising powers under Section 187 (8) of the Act, further action could be taken only after conclusion of the proceedings.
Sd/- JUDGE SV