9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Review petition for urging additional grounds in the impugned order of allotment of civic amenity site. Compliance with statutory rules and mandatory requirements under Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Rules, 1991.
Analysis: 1. The matter involved the review petition filed by the petitioner to urge additional grounds in the impugned order of allotment of a civic amenity site. The petitioner relied on Rule 3(3) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities (Allotment of Civic Amenity Sites) Rules, 1991, and Rule 7(1) of the Rules, alleging blatant violations by the respondents in passing the impugned allotment order. The Court considered the grounds for reviewing the order as provided under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and allowed the application for urging additional grounds, as non-consideration of these grounds had vitiated the impugned order. The objections raised by the respondents were deemed inapplicable to the case, and the application was allowed based on the errors apparent on the face of the record. 2. The review petition also challenged the allotment of the civic amenity site to the 3rd respondent, alleging violations of Rules 3(2), 3(3), and 7(1) of the Rules. The petitioner argued that the second respondent failed to comply with mandatory requirements such as due publicity for allotment, examination of applications, and following the prescribed procedures for allotting civic amenity sites. The Court examined the impugned order in light of the statutory rules and found blatant violations by the respondents in passing the resolution without following the required principles and procedures. The Court referred to legal principles emphasizing that acts must be done in the prescribed manner under statutes, and non-compliance renders the actions void in law. 3. The Court noted that the second respondent did not produce any material to show compliance with the mandatory requirement of due publicity as required under Rule 3(3) of the Rules. The failure to follow the statutory and mandatory duties, as highlighted in previous legal judgments, was considered a significant error in passing the impugned resolution. Additionally, the Court found non-compliance with Rule 7(1) in not examining the claims of the parties as per the guiding principles, which further invalidated the impugned order. Despite these violations not being initially raised in the Writ Petition, the Court held that it should have examined the legality and validity of the order, ultimately allowing the review petition and quashing the impugned orders. 4. In conclusion, the Court allowed the review petition, recalled the impugned order, and quashed the impugned orders related to the allotment of the civic amenity site. The Court emphasized the importance of compliance with statutory rules and mandatory requirements in such matters, highlighting the consequences of non-compliance and the need for thorough examination of legal provisions in reviewing orders.
|
