Writ Petition No. 33169 of 2016 (LB-BMP). Case: Lakshminarayana C. Vs Adi Chunchanagiri Maha Samsthana Mutt and Ors.. Karnataka High Court

Case Number:Writ Petition No. 33169 of 2016 (LB-BMP)
Party Name:Lakshminarayana C. Vs Adi Chunchanagiri Maha Samsthana Mutt and Ors.
Counsel:For Appellant: Venkatesh H.N., Advocate
Judges:R.S. Chauhan, J.
Issue:Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 - Sections 321(1), 321(3)
Judgement Date:March 13, 2017
Court:Karnataka High Court
 
FREE EXCERPT

Order:

R.S. Chauhan, J.

  1. The petitioner has challenged the legality of the order dated 23.02.2015, passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, whereby, the learned Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by respondent No. 1, Adi Chunchanagiri Maha Samsthana Mutt, and has set aside the confirmation order dated 21.06.2012 passed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the Commissioner and the Assistant Executive Engineer, respectively, and has remanded the case back to the BBMP.

  2. Briefly the facts of the case are, respondent No. 1 happens to be a religious Mutt running several educational institutions and hospitals. It is thus engaged in social service to the society at large. On the other hand, the petitioner is an Ex-Councilor of CMC, Bommanahalli. He claims that he is a social worker and a RTI activist who is opposed to corruption in public offices and who is engaged in unearthing several corrupt practices of various government officials. In his endeavor to seek out corruption, he has filed several complaints before the Hon'ble Lokayuktha against many IAS and IPS officers, and other public servants.

  3. According to the petitioner, he came to know that in Sy. No. 89, consisting of two different blocks, the first block measuring 6 acres, and the second block measuring 9 acres 31 guntas, situated at Hulimavu village, Beguru Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, the respondent No. 1 has encroached upon the said land, although the said land belongs to the government. According to him, when he applied for the papers of the property, he discovered that the land was allotted to Ramalingeshwara Temple Trust to perform pooja in existing temple in the said land. However, according to the petitioner, respondent No. 1 in collusion with the Deputy Commissioner of the Bengaluru Urban District created false records to show that the said land belongs to the Trust, respondent No. 1. Therefore, the petitioner filed a complaint before the Special Court for Lokayuktha against respondent No. 1, the Mutt, and the Deputy Commissioner of Bengaluru Urban District, with regard to the illegal acts committed by them.

  4. To the petitioner's surprise, in April 2012, allegedly respondent No. 1 started illegal construction in Sy. No. 89 of Hulimavu Village. Moreover, respondent No. 3, the Assistant Executive Engineer, visited the site and issued a notice under Section 321(1) of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the KMC Act', for brevity). Subsequently, since...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL