This writ petition is filed seeking for quashing the

order dated 12.06.2012 passed by the second respondent

vide Annexures-J and H.

Brief facts leading raise to filing of this writ

petition are as under:

The petitioners claim to be the owners of land

bearing CTS Ward Extension, CTS Nos.3063-B and

measuring 13.4/9 sq. yards and petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are

the joint owners of plot No.3069-D measuring 375.5/9 sq.

- 3 -

yards situated at Vidyanagar, Hubballi and the said

properties were purchased under the registered sale deeds

dated 31.03.1999. In the Comprehensive Development

Plan (CDP), the petitioners applied for construction of

residential building. The 4^th respondent granted permission

for construction of residential houses. Accordingly, the

petitioners have constructed the building and when they

asked for mention of the land use as commercial the

respondent issued an endorsement that while preparing

CDP the same will be mentioned. In the public interest

petition, this Court has directed the Corporation to find out

the public place and to remove the encroachment. The

second respondent held an enquiry and without there

being any jurisdiction, passed the impugned order which is

beyond the scope of the directions issued by this Court.

Hence, this writ petition.

Heard the learned counsel for petitioners,

learned H.C.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned

counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5.

- 4 -

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the

petitioners have filed two suits in O.S.Nos.455/2001 and

456/2001 against the respondent Nos.1, 4 and 5. He

submits that the said suits came to be decreed vide

judgment and decree dated 18.02.2003. The said

judgment and decree was confirmed by this Court in

R.S.A.Nos.6040/2010 and 6041/2010 vide judgment and

decree dated 13.08.2015. This Court while dismissing the

above referred second appeals, has observed that it is

always open for the appellant to initiate action against the

plaintiffs in accordance with law and in accordance with

the provisions of the Karnataka Municipality Corporation

Act, 1976. The respondent No.2 without considering the

judgment and decree passed by the trial Court has passed

the impugned order holding that the suit property is an

open space reserved for garden. He submits that the said

finding recorded by the respondent No.2 is without any

basis. Hence, he submits that as far as ownership of the

petitioners over the suit properties is concerned, that has

- 5 -

not been disputed by the respondent No.2. Hence, the

finding recorded by the second respondent in the

impugned order is contrary to law. On these grounds, he

prayed to allow the writ petition.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondents

supported the impugned order and prayed to dismiss the

writ petition.

6.

Heard and perused the records and considered

the submissions of the learned counsel for parties.

7.

It is not in dispute that the first petitioner

purchased the property under the registered sale deeds

dated 31.03.1999 and further it is also not in dispute that

the petitioners have constructed the building after

obtaining the permission from the concerned authorities.

The petitioners applied for change of the land use from

‘residential’ to ‘commercial’ for which, the first respondent

permitted the land use from ‘residential’ to ‘commercial’.

Thereafter

the

petitioners

filed

an

application

to

respondent No.5 to change the use of plots from

- 6 -

residential to commercial in City Development Plan. In

turn, the respondent NO.5 informed the petitioners that

necessary

changes

would

be

effected

as

per

the

Government Order while preparing the next CDP. It

appears

that

some

residents

filed

PIL

in

W.P.No.21412/2007 and this Court disposed of the said

writ petition vide order dated 12.11.2009 directing the

respondents therein to take appropriate action for removal

of encroachment, if any, after following due procedure.

On the basis of the order passed by this Court in PIL, the

second respondent ha