HC Decision Rejecting Claim Of Encroachment Of Public Road Binding On Legislative Council Petitions Committee: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka Excessive Courtroom has put aside a path issued by the Petition Committee of the Karnataka Legislative Council relating to the alleged encroachment of a public street in Rajakaluve.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj allowed the petition filed by C Bhavani @Hamsa and quashed the directive issued by the Committee on March 8, 2017. It mentioned “The impugned path dated 8.3.2017 issued by the Respondent No.1, is hereby quashed.”
The petitioner contended that the Petitions Committee, Karnataka Legislative Council, has acted on a grievance filed by one Sri.C.Ramesh. The mentioned C.Ramesh was a celebration to the proceedings earlier than the Division Bench of this Courtroom in a Public Curiosity Litigation in Shriram Properties Pvt Ltd vs. State Of Karnataka & others in WP No.47747 of 2017 & different linked issues dated 19.01.2021, whereby mentioned C.Ramesh was respondent No.2 in WP No.1348 of 2018.
The Division Bench of the Courtroom categorically got here to a conclusion by its order dated 19.1.2021 that there is no such thing as a encroachment of Rajakaluve or a street as alleged by the mentioned C.Ramesh, the proceedings by means of a grievance filed by Sri.C.Ramesh earlier than the Land Grabbing Courtroom had additionally been dismissed.
Thus, it was argued that the order handed by the Division Bench can be equally relevant to the current info, and as such, the path issued on 8.3.2017 by the Petitions Committee, Karnataka Legislative Council, can’t be acted upon.
The bench perused the order of the division bench of the excessive court docket and mentioned “It’s clearly and categorically noticed by the Division Bench of a go well with in OS No.3596 of 2015 having been filed earlier than the Particular Courtroom Land Grabbing and the Division Bench has categorically come to a conclusion that there is no such thing as a encroachment of any public street or a Rajakaluve in Sy.No.83/2 and the Assistant Government Engineer, BBMP had reported on 19.7.2017 to the Particular Courtroom that there is no such thing as a existence of any Rajakaluve in Sy.No.83/ 2.”
Following which it held “The discovering of the Division Bench of this Courtroom although subsequent to the path issued by Respondent No.1, the mentioned discovering can be binding even on Respondent No.1-Committee.”
Accordingly it allowed the petition.
Look: Advocate Shivaprasad Shantanagoudar for Advocate Vinod Reddy V for Petitioner.
AGA Mahantesh Shettar for R1 TO R3.
Advocate N.R Jagadeeswara FOR R4.
Advocate G.S Venkat Subbarao for impleading applicant.
Quotation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 226
Case Title: C Bhavani @Hamsa AND The Petitions Committee Karnataka Legislative Council & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 30129 OF 2017
