Partly allowed

Jayavant S/O Maruti Chougule v. the City Corporation of Belagavi

Karnataka HC18 Feb 2019WP/111311/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought an injunction against demolition of their shops, claiming disputed title against the Belagavi Corporation. The Court held the issue is one of title and directed the Corporation to initiate proceedings under Section 178A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act before displacement. Pending resolution, the Corporation cannot dispossess the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st Respondent Corporation to initiate proceedings under Section 178A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act within four weeks; stay on dispossession pending such proceedings.

Jayavant S/O Maruti Chougule Vs the City Corporation… — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. NARENDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NOs.111311-111312/2014 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHRI.JAYAVANT S/O. MARUTI CHOUGULE AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. BHANDUR GALLI, BELAGAVI

¶9

SHRI.SHIVAJI S/O SAVANT PATTAN AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. GANAPAT GALLI, MAJAGAON, TQ/DIST: BELAGAVI

¶10

... PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. SHREEVATSA SURESH HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE CITY CORPORATION OF BELAGAVI (RPTD.BY ITS COMMISSIONER) SUBHASH NAGAR, BELAGAVI

¶14

THE HESCOM CO.LTD., (RPTD.BY ITS GENERAL MANAGING DIRECTOR) NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI

¶15

: 2 :

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, (RPTD.BY ITS SECRETARY) M.S.BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU.

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION & URBAN DEVELOPMENT, (RPTD.BY ITS SECRETARY) M.S.BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU.

¶18

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BELAGAVI.

¶19

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE CITY OF BELAGAVI

¶20

... RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. RAVI V. HOSAMANI, AGA FOR R3 – R6; SRI.ARAVIND D. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S. BADAWADAGI, ADV. FOR R2) ---

¶22

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO DESIST FROM DEMOLISHING THE CONSTRUCTIONS, BUILDINGS AND SHOPS OF THE PETITIONERS SITUATED AT MAJAGAON, TQ/DIST: BELAGAVI AND DISPOSSESSING THEM EXCEPT BY TAKING RECOURSE TO LAW BY ACQUIRING THE PROPERTIES OF THE PETITIONERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶23

: 3 :

¶24

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondents No.1 & 2 and learned AGA for respondents.

¶27

These writ petitions are preferred by the petitioners seeking for a direction to the respondents to desist from demolishing the constructions, buildings and shops of the petitioners and dispossessing them except by taking recourse to law.

¶28

The grievance of the petitioners in sum and substance is that, they are in possession of certain landed property within the limits of the 1^st respondent Corporation and that the 1^st respondent Corporation is attempting to dispossess them on the premise that the petitioners are in occupation of the land that vests in

¶29

: 4 :

¶30

the Corporation. In other words, they have encroached upon a portion of the property which is vested in the respondent-Corporation, in a sense the issue is one of a title dispute as to whom the land vests. The said issue need not detain this Court for long as the provisions of Section 178A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act provides for resolution of a situation of this nature.

¶31

There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioners are in occupation of certain landed property. It is also not in dispute that the respondentCorporation is staking claim to a portion or the whole of the property. If that be so, it was incumbent upon the Corporation to initiate the proceeding before the Regional Commissioner as mandated above.

¶32

In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petitions could be disposed of with a direction to the 1^st respondent Corporation to initiate such proceedings as provided

¶33

: 5 :

¶34

under the provisions of Section 178A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act. If such proceedings are initiated, the Regional Commissioner shall dispose of the proceedings within an outer limit of twelve weeks. In the interregnum, the 1^st respondent shall not attempt to dispossess the petitioners. It is clarified that the 1^st respondent shall initiate the proceedings before the Regional Commissioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶35

The writ petitions stand ordered accordingly.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

gab

Jayavant S/O Maruti Chougule v. the City Corporation of Belagavi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayavant S/O Maruti Chougule v. the City Corporation of Belagavi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Kareem S/O Abdul Rasheed Vs the Govt. of Karnataka

Maruti Chavan S/O Jayasingh Vs the Govt. of Karnataka

Sri.Govindagouda Vs Sri.Sharanagouda

Smt Munni Devi Vs Sri Uttamchand Jain

Jayashree D/O Basavaraj Kotur Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. M. Nalini W/O Gopal Krishna Vs Sri. Sharanappa S/O Siddappa Saloni