1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

W. P. No.201539/2021 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

C. VINAY KUMAR S/O RAMBABU

AGE. 31 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,

R/O. H.NO. 501,

RAM KISHORE COLONY, SINDHANUR,

RAICHUR DIST-584128.

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND :

1 .

THE COMMISSIONER

CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,

SINDHANUR,

DIST. RAICHUR-584101.

2 .

THE DIRECTOR

TOWN PLANNING AUTHORITY,

SINDHANUR,

DIST. RAICHUR-584101.

3.

EARAPPA S/O. SHANKARAPPA

AGE. 60 YEARS,

OCC. AGRICULTURE,

R/O. SUKALPET, SINDHANOOR,

DIST. RAICHUR - 584101.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3;

R1 & R2 - NOTICE DISPENSED WITH V/O. DATED 24.8.2021)

2

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN

THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY ORDER TO QUASH THE

ORDER DATED 18.08.2021 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1

VIDE ANNEXURE-Q IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:-

ORDER

In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged an

order passed by respondent No.1 dated 18.08.2021

(Annexure-Q), by which the respondent No.1 directed the

petitioner to vacate the road margin area that was

relinquished in favour of City Municipal Council where the

petitioner had constructed a water tank. Respondent No.1

also directed the petitioner to remove a shed constructed

by the petitioner in the area reserved for a park.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that the respondent No.1 has failed to follow the

prescribed procedure before directing the water tank and

the shed to be vacated. He contended that the survey

conducted by the Revenue Surveyor indicated that there

was a deficit of 8 guntas in the land owned by the

petitioner. Hence, the question of encroaching into the

road margin area does not arise.

3

3.

Learned counsel for the caveator, on the other

hand, submitted that this Writ Petition is not maintainable

in view of an alternate remedy available under the

Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (henceforth referred to

as '1964 Act'). He also contended that once the petitioner

had relinquished the area reserved for a road, he cannot

undertake any development activity in the said area. He

also contended that since the petitioner had blocked the

road , he could not undertake development in the adjacent

land and the Municipal Council had cancelled the license to

form a layout in the land as it was not developed within a

period of two years.

4.

The exercise of power by the respondent No.1

and requiring the petitioner to vacate the area relinquished

by him can be traced to Section 187(9)(c) of the 1964 Act.

Section 343 of the 1964 Act provides an appeal remedy

against an order passed by respondent No.1 under Section

187(9)(c) of the 1964 Act, before the City Municipal

Council.

Consequently,

this

Writ

Petition

is

not

maintainable, more so when the petitioner did not contend

4

that the appeal remedy was neither alternative nor

efficacious.

5.

In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is

dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to

approach the City Municipal Council, Sindhanur and file

necessary appeal under Section 343 of the 1964 Act within

a period of two weeks from today. The petitioner is also

at liberty to seek for interim order from the City Municipal

Council, who shall consider the prayer for grant of interim

order in accordance with law. Until the petitioner files an

appeal within 15 days from today, the construction put up

by the petitioner , namely, the water tank shall not be

demolished. The City Municipal Council shall dispose off

the appeal within a period of two months from the date of

receipt of a certified copy of this order .

Sd/-

JU