JAYASHREE J SHENOY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this petition, who claims to be the owner of the land measuring 25 cents situated in Kodialbail Village, together with a house bearing Door No. 2-3-138, has challenged the order dated 18th January, 1992, the copy of which has been produced as Annexure-B passed by the Standing Committee of the Mangalore City Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the corporation') and also the covering letter dated 29th January, 1992, the copy of which has been produced as Annexure-C, issued by the 2nd respondent communicating the order annexure-B, dated 18th January, 1992.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner as set out in this petition is asfollows: the 3rd respondent is the tenant in occupation of the building bearing Door No. 2-3-134 under the petitioner, and the dispute between the petitioner and 3rd respondent pursuant to the proceedings initiated by the petitioner for eviction of the 3rd respondent has been pending. According to the petitioner, on the basis of the petition filed by the 3rd respondent, the 2nd respondent without any justification issued the notice dated 30th may, 1991, the copy of which has been produced as Annexure-A to this petition, directing the petitioner to cut the branches of two trees, namely, Seethapal and Atti trees situated in the said 25 cents of land belonging to the petitioner, in exercise of the power conferred on him under sub-section (1) of Section 323 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act; (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') and aggrieved by the said notice, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Standing Committee of the corporation as provided under Section 444 of the Act; and the standing Committee of the Corporation by means of the order/resolution Annexure-B, dated 18th January, 1992, rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner.

(3.) SRI N. S. Bhat, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, put forward three contentions in support of the prayer of the petitioner that the orders impugned are liable to be quashed by this Court. Firstly, he submitted that the notice Annexure-A came to be passed without hearing the petitioner and without giving an opportunity to the petitioner, and therefore, the notice annexure-A and also the order/resolution Annexure-B are liable to be quashed. Secondly, he submitted that the notice annexure-A and the order Annexure-B are not speaking orders; and no reasons have been assigned in the said impugned notice/order and therefore, they are liable to be quashed. Thirdly, he contended that both notice Annexure-A and the order Annexure-B refer to the spot inspection alleged to have been held which was made as the basis of the order and as a matter of fact, the petitioner had no notice about the spot inspection stated to have been conducted as referred to in the notice Annexure-A and the order Annexure-B. Therefore, the learned Counsel submitted that since the authorities have relied upon the spot inspection stated to have been held without giving notice to the petitioner and without even making available the copies of the said spot inspection notes, the impugned notice and the order are liable to be quashed.