Disposed

Sri R Manjunath v. the Executive Engineer

Karnataka HC14 Nov 2019WP/24986/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a PIL, the Karnataka High Court directed the Executive Engineer National Highway to survey National Highway 234 for encroachments and initiate removal proceedings if found, within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to survey NH-234 for encroachments and initiate removal proceedings if found, within three months, and report action within four months.

Sri R Manjunath Vs the Executive Engineer — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 24986 / 2017 (GM-RES-PIL)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI R. MANJUNATH S/O SRI T. RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT # 16, GANDHINAGAR CHINTHAMANI TOWN

¶11

CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT – 563 125

¶12

SRI K.V. VENKATESH MURTHY S/O SRI K.V. VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT KONKANAHALLI VILLAGE TALAGAVARA POST CHINTHAMANI TALUK

¶13

CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT – 563 125

¶14

... PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SHRI H.T. NATARAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NATIONAL HIGH WAY (HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION) N.H. DIVISION NO.14/3, 4^TH FLOOR

¶18

¶19

CFC BUILDING NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001

¶20

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT CHICKBALLAPUR – 562 101

¶21

THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001

¶22

THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL CHINTHAMANI REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT – 563 125

¶23

.... RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SHRI P.B. ACHAPPA, AGA FOR R2 & R3; SHRI R.V. RAMESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4; R1 SERVED)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO REMOVE ALL THE ILLEGAL ENCROACHMENT ON THE CHINTHAMANI NATIONAL HIGHWAY 234 WHICH PASSES THROUGH CHINTHAMANI TOWN, BETWEEN KOLAR CIRCLE TO BAGEPALLI CROSS, CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT AND ALSO TO ISSUE FURTHER DIRECTION TO MAINTAIN THE WIDTH OF THE ROAD AS 40 METERS AND ETC.

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

¶28

ORDER

¶29

A memo is filed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners stating that the Standing Counsel of the National Highway has expressed the inability to take notice. He pointed out that notice may be served through the Court.

¶30

The only prayer made in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is in the nature of a public interest litigation, is prayer (a) which reads thus:

¶31

“(a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any Direction, directing the respondents to remove all the illegal encroachment on the Chinthamani National Highway 234 which passes through Chinthamani Town, between Kolar Circle to Bagepalli Cross, Chickballapur District and also to issue further direction to maintain the width of the road as 40 meters.”

¶32

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has

¶33

pointed out that from time to time, the petitioners made representations pointing out to the Officers of the National Highways that there have been encroachments made on the National Highway-234, but no action has been taken. His contention is that the width of the National Highway is 40 meters. He further pointed out from the photographs that the width of the National Highway at

¶34

¶35

some places is now very narrow due to the encroachments.

¶36

Our attention is invited to the provisions of the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 and in particular, the provision of Section 26 thereof under which, there is a power vesting on the National Highway Authority to remove the encroachments on the National Highways. Section 23 creates a legal fiction which provides that all lands forming part of a Highway are to be deemed as a property of the Central Government. Section 24 deals with prevention of occupation of Highway land and Section 26 deals with removal of unauthorized occupation.

¶37

It is the duty of the Authorities under the National Highways Act, 1956 to ensure that there are no encroachments and if there are encroachments, to take steps to remove the same.

¶38

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has relied upon the information furnished under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to show that there is an encroachment on the said National Highway.

¶39

¶40

As far as the fourth respondent is concerned, the stand

¶41

taken in the objections is that a power vested in the National Highway Authority to take action.

¶42

Notwithstanding the service of notice through the Court,

¶43

none appears for the first respondent. Therefore, appropriate directions will have to be issued to the first respondent.

¶44

Accordingly, we pass the following order:

¶45

(i) We direct the first respondent to carry out a survey of National Highway-234 between Kolar Circle to Bagepalli Cross, Chickballapur District with a view to ascertain whether there are encroachments on National Highway234. If it is found that there are encroachments, the first respondent shall initiate appropriate proceedings for removal of such encroachments in accordance with the provisions of the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002;

¶46

(ii) We direct the first respondent to comply with the above directions within a period of three months from the date on which a copy of this order is provided to him by the petitioners;

¶47

(iii) We direct the first respondent to communicate in writing

¶48

¶49

to the petitioners the action taken by him in terms of the aforesaid directions within a period of four months from the date on which a copy of the order is served to the office of the first respondent;

¶50

(iv) We make it clear that the action of removal of encroachments, if any, shall be taken in accordance with law;

¶51

(v) With the above directions, the petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/JUDGE

Sri R Manjunath v. the Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri R Manjunath v. the Executive Engineer

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

D. S. Ramachandra Reddy Vs the Commissioner of Police

National Law School of India University Vs Mr Dayan Warsi

The Bangadi Co. Operative Agriculture Society Vs Sri Balakrishna