Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
B.M. Shyam Prasad, J.
Antharaghattamma Women Consumers Sangha – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Karnataka and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 3298 of 2017
Decided On : 05-03-2024
ORDER :
1. The petitioner is a registered society, and the petitioner is aggrieved by the fifth respondent's Resolution dated 02.09.2016 [Annexure-E] to allot a civil amenity site to the sixth respondent in preference over it. The petitioner contends that because the sixth respondent is a body incorporated only on paper and does not work for the public, it is not entitled to a civic amenity site.
2. The petitioner alleges that the resolution to allot civic amenity site to the sixth respondent is after publication in 'Nada Sahyadri Dainika', a local daily, without any circulation and that the objections filed by a certain Sri. Kumaraswamy despite the limited circulation of the daily has not been considered while resolving to allot the civic amenity site to the sixth respondent. Mrs. Jahnavi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterates the afore to contend that the fifth respondent's resolution must be quashed with a direction to the fifth respondent to consider the petitioner's application for grant of civic amenity site.
3. Sri. Shamanth Naik, the learned High Court Government Pleader, submits that his instructions are that no further decision is taken by the third respondent to accord permission in terms of the impugned resolution to enable allotment of the civic amenity site to the sixth respondent. When queried, Sri. Shamanth Naik submits that the Deputy Commissioner [the third respondent] would consider giving permission in the light of the grounds as asserted by the petitioner against the sixth respondent's entitlement to a civic amenity site.
4. If the fifth respondent's resolution dated 02.09.2016 has not culminated in a decision and it is subject to consideration by the third respondent as now stated before this Court, it must be opined that the issue is still at large and the petitioner's grievance as against the resolution to allot a civic amenity site to the sixth respondent can be considered by the Deputy Commissioner, the third respondent. Hence, the following:
ORDER:
The petition stands disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a representation with the third respondent enclosing a certified copy of this order, and directing the third respondent to consider according permission only after examining the objections and after due opportunity to the petitioner and the sixth respondent.
The Deputy Commissioner must consider objections and provide fair opportunity before deciding on civic amenity site allotment.
Point of law :Allotment -Learned Single Judge has misdirected himself in considering the eligibility of the allottees to be allotted the civic amenity sites and the purpose of allotment in terms of t....
What is required under Rule 7 of Rules 1991 is a comparative analysis to be made of each of applicants so as to determine who is best suited to receive a lease of civil amenity site and for what purp....
The law mandates that authorities shall secure possession of the parks and civic amenity sites which are part and parcel of a private approved layout through registered relinquishment deed free of co....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for fair and transparent allotment of public property, emphasizing the need for compliance with legal provisions, including the pub....
The cancellation of an allotment of land by a Grampanchayat without following the due process under the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 is invalid. The Grampanchayat is obligated to consider representat....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
