Quick viewing(Text Mode)

In the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore Dated This the 7Th Day of October 2013 : Present : the Hon'ble Mr. D.H.Waghela

In the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore Dated This the 7Th Day of October 2013 : Present : the Hon'ble Mr. D.H.Waghela

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013 : PRESENT : THE HON’BLE MR. D.H.WAGHELA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA WRIT PETITION No. 47873 / 2012 C/W WRIT PETITION Nos. 40972-73 / 2013 (LB-RES-PIL)

IN WRIT PETITION No. 47873 / 2012

BETWEEN

1. K UMESH AITHAL S/O YANJESHWARA AITHAL AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS KODI-KANYANA, SASTHAN DISTRICT, UDUPI-576104.

2. P NAGARAJ S/O THIMMA POOJARY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS PARAMPALLI, PADUKERESALIGRAMA , UDUPI-576104.

3. P RAM UPADHYA S/O P VASUDEVA UPADHYA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS PARMPALLI-PADUKERE SALIGRAMA, UDUPI DISTRICT UDUPI -576104.

4. P DINESH UPADHYA S/O P C UPADHYA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS PARAMPALLI- PADUKERE, SALIGRAMA UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI-576104.

2

5. K RAVINDRA AITHAL S/O NARAYANA AITHAL, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, KODI KANYNA, SASTAN, UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI-576104.

6. RAJESH UPADHAYA S/O P N UPAHAYA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS PARAMPALLI PADUKRE, SALIGRAMA, UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI-576104.

7. SRINIVAS AMIN S/O SADIYA MARKALA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS PARAMPALLI SALIGRAMA, UDUPI DISTRICT UDUPI-576104.

8. VENKATESH NAVEEDA S/O SUBRAMANYA NAVEDA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, KODIKANYANA, SASTHAN, UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI-576104.

9. K.SADASHIVA AITHAL S/O VENKATESH AITHAL AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, KODIKANYANA, SASTHAN, UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI-576104.

10. K SUBRYA AITHAL S/O THAMMAYYA AITHAL AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, KODIKANYANA, SASTHAN, UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI -576104.

11. K VISHWANATHA C/O AJANTHA POOJARI AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, KODIKANYANA, SASTHAN, UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI -576104.

12. SHYAMA S/O SANJEEVA POOJARY AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, PARAMPALLI, PADUKERE 3

SALIGRAMA, UDUPI DISTRICT UDUPI-576104.

13. K KARUNAKRA AITHAL S/O SRINIVASA AITHAL AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS KODIKANYANA, SASTHAN UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI-576104. ... PETITIONERS

( BY SRI H.JAYANTH POOJARY, ADVOCATE, FOR SRI K SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE. )

A N D

1. UNION OF MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS, KRISHIBHAVAN, NEW , REPT. BY ITS SECRETARY.

2. STATE OF KARNATAKA MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT & FORESTS, VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BANGALORE-560 001, R/BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY BANGALORE .

3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI-576 104.

4. KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD PUBLIC UTILITY BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001, REP/BY ITS CHAIRMAN BANGALORE CITY.

5. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD , UDUPI, R/BY ITS ENVIRONMENT OFFICER, UDUPI-576 104.

6. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR (ENVIRONMENT) "RAJATADRI", 1ST FLOOR, C BLOCK, MANIPAL, UDUPI-576 104.

7. THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL 4

UDUPI, REP/BY ITS COMMISSIONER, UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI-576 104.

8. THE CHIEF OFFICER TOWN PANCHAYAT, SALIGRAMA, UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI-576 104.

9. SRI DAYANANDA SALIYAN S/O LATE CHANDU MENDAN, PARAMPALLI VILLAGE, UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI-576 104. ... RESPONDENTS

( BY SRI R.G.KOLLE, A.G.A. FOR R-2, R-3 & R-6. SMT. SINCHANA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI S.KALYAN BASAVARAJ, A.S.G. FOR R-1. SRI K.PRASAD HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-7 & R-8. SRI H.PAVAN CHANDRA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R-9. SRI D.NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R-4. )

WRIT PETITION FILED PRAYING TO QUASH THE LICENSE BEARING NO. 42/12-13 DATED 26.6.2012 ISSUED BY R-8 IN FAVOUR OF R-9 TO CONSTRUCT A FARMHOUSE ON THE LAND WHICH COMES UNDER THE PURVIEW OF “COASTAL REGULATION ZONE” OR “NO DEVELOPMENT ZONE” VIDE ANNEXURE-A, AND DIRECT R-9 TO STOP ANY FURTHER CONSTRUCTION OF THE FARM HOUSE WHICH IS BEING ILLEGALLY CONSTRUCTED ON “NO DEVELOPMENT ZONE”.

IN WRIT PETITION Nos. 40972-73 / 2013

BETWEEN

SRI DAYANANDA SALIYAN AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O LATE SRI CHANDU MENDAN 5

RESIDING AT PARAMPALLI VILLAGE UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 104. ... PETITIONER

( BY SRI H PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, ADVOCATE. )

A N D

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT & FORESTS VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDI BANGALORE - 560 001, REPT. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISIONER UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI 576 201.

3. THE ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FOREST DEPARTMENT & FOREST, ENVIRONMENT & ECOLOGY (CRZ-ME), RAJATHADRI, 1ST FLOOR, C BLOCK, MANIPAL UDUPI 576 104.

4. THE CHIEF OFFICER SALIGRAMA TOWN PANCHAYATH UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI 576 104. ... RESPONDENTS

( BY SRI K PRASAD HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-4. SRI R.G.KOLLE, A.G.A. FOR R-1 TO R-3. )

WRIT PETITIONS FILED PRAYING TO QUASH THE LETTER/DIRECTION DATED 11.10.2012, ISSUED BY R-3 ADDRESSED TO R-4 DIRECTING INITIATION OF ACTION AGAINST THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 10.9.2013 ISSUED BY R-4 VIDE ANNEXURE-B.

6

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA, J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Writ Petition No. 47873/2012 is filed as a Public

Interest Litigation assailing grant of licence bearing No.

42/12-13 dated 26.6.2012 by Respondent No.8 in favour of

Respondent No.9 to construct a farm house on the land stated to be within the “Coastal Regulation Zone” (CRZ). A direction has also been sought to stop any further construction in the said Zone by Respondent No.9.

2. Writ Petition Nos. 40972-73/2013 are filed by

Respondent No.9 in Writ Petition No. 47873/2012

(hereinafter referred to as Respondent No.9 for the sake of convenience) assailing the notice dated 11.10.2012 issued by the Regional Director (Environment), Manipal, seeking to initiate action against Respondent No.9, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-A. Also the notice dated 10.9.2013, issued by the Chief Officer, Saligrama Town Panchayath,

Udupi, a copy of which is at Annexure-B, is assailed.

7

3. Both matters have been posted on several dates and during the pendency of these Writ Petitions, the respondent authorities have initiated and taken certain actions as against Respondent No.9. It is the contention of the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 47873/2012 that, despite an order of status quo as regards possession and construction dated 4.12.2012, Respondent No.9 has continued to put up construction and has, in fact, completed the construction in the CRZ. It is under these circumstances that the respondent authorities initiated action against Respondent No.9 and also issued notice to him.

4. Today, learned A.G.A. has placed on record a copy of the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Udupi District,

Udupi, dated 5.10.2013, wherein it has been ordered that the building constructed by Respondent No.9 is an illegal structure as the permission was obtained without producing ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the CRZ authorities and from Karnataka State Pollution Control

Board and on account of there being non-conversion of 8

land by the revenue authorities. We think, as a result of this, the grievance of the petitioners in the Public Interest

Litigation is assuaged and no further orders would be necessary in the said Writ Petition.

5. In response, learned counsel appearing for

Respondent No.9 has stated that he has just received a copy of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner,

Udupi District, Udupi, dated 5.10.2013, that Respondent

No.9, in his Writ Petition Nos. 40972-73/2013, has challenged the notice issued prior to the issuance of the order dated 5.10.2013, and that he has instructions to submit that the said order would be challenged by him before the appropriate authority and that some time may be granted to file necessary petition or appeal against the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 5.10.2013. He, therefore, submits that, till the petition is filed, no precipitated action may be taken by the respondent authorities pursuant to the order of the Deputy

Commissioner dated 5.10.2013.

9

6. Having regard to the developments in the matter during its pendency before this court and as the Deputy

Commissioner, by his order dated 5.10.2013, has stated that the construction put up by Respondent No.9 is an illegal structure and taking into consideration the submission made on behalf of Respondent No.9 that he would assail the said order before the appropriate authority, we find that the Writ Petition filed in public interest would not call for any further orders. Accordingly,

Writ Petition No. 47873/2012 is disposed of.

7. Writ Petition Nos. 40972-73/2013 also would not call for any further orders in view of the order of the Deputy

Commissioner dated 5.10.2013. Since Respondent No.9 seeks to assail the said order before the appropriate authority, he is at liberty to do so.

8. Learned A.G.A. states that, for a period of one week, no precipitated action would be initiated pursuant to the order dated 5.10.2013. The said statement is also placed on record. 10

9. Writ Petition Nos. 40972-73/2013 are thus disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner in the said petitions, who is Respondent No.9 in Writ Petition No. 47873/2012, to assail the order dated 5.10.2013 passed by the Deputy

Commissioner, Udupi. The fact that no precipitated action would be taken by the respondent authorities pursuant to the order dated 5.10.2013, as recorded herein, would not come in the way of the concerned revisional or appellate authority to consider the matter of Respondent No.9 insofar as any interim prayer is concerned, in accordance with law.

All contentions on both sides are left open.

Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/- JUDGE

ckc/-

Top View