Allowed

Rajeshwari W/O Rajashekhar Ballari v. National Highwa Auathority of India

Karnataka HC4 Nov 2020WP/148003/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 sought directions to respondent authorities to consider petitioner's representations regarding road widening and premises acquisition. The court directed the respondents to consider the representations within two months and restrained them from demolishing the property meanwhile.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to consider representations within two months and restrained demolition of petitioner's properties.

Rajeshwari W/O Rajashekhar Ballari Vs National… — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 04^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020.

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

¶5

W.P.NO.148003/2020 (LA-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

RAJESHWARI W/O RAJASHEKHAR BALLARI, AGE : 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O BALLARI GINNING COMPOUND, NEAR K.H.PATIL SABHA BHAVAN, TQ: GADAG, DIST: GADAG 582101.

¶8

.. PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SMT.ARUNA R.DESHPANDE, ADV..)

¶10

AND :

¶11

NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, 2^ND CROSS, SATTUR COLONY, VIDYAGIRI, DHARWAD-580004.

¶12

THE PROJECT MANAGER (TECHNICAL) NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, 2^ND CROSS, SATTUR COLONY, VIDYAGIRI, DHARWAD-580004.

¶13

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, 2^ND CROSS, SATTUR COLONY, VIDYAGIRI, DHARAWAD-580004.

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, GADAG DISTRICT, GADAG.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,

¶16

¶17

TALUKA GADAG, DISTRICT : GADAG.

¶18

THE COMMISSIONER, GADAG-BETAGERI CITY MUNICIPALITY.

¶19

.. RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SHRI SHIVAPRABHU S.HIREMATH, AGA FOR R.4 & 5) SHRI SHIVARAJ S.BALLOLLI, ADV. FOR R.1 TO 3 SHRI SHIVASAI M.PATIL, ADV. FOR R.1 TO 3)

¶21

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING THIS COURT TO ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21.09.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-E1 AND FURTHER SOUGHT TO ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21.09.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-E2 AND ALSO SOUGHT TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.4 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21.09.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-E3 AND SUCH OTHER RELIEFS.

¶22

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

: ORDER :

¶24

The petitioner filed a writ of mandamus seeking a direction to respondent Nos.2 to 4 to consider the representation vide Annexures-E, E1 and E2 by respondent Nos.2 to 4.

¶25

Brief facts of the case of the petitioner are as under:

¶26

¶27

The petitioner claims to be the owner of the premises bearing CTS No.6710/42A/2B1, CTS No.6710/42A/2A2, and CTS No.6710/42A/2C situated in Gadag. The petitioner has constructed the building and hospital in the said properties. The respondents have proposed to widen the Karwar-Ilkal road in Gadag. According to the petitioner, the petitioner’s properties fall within the stretch sought to be acquired for road widening. As such, the respondents have no right to demolish the building without initiating the acquisition proceedings.

¶28

The petitioner has submitted the representations on 21.09.2020 to respondent Nos.2 to 4. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 without considering the representations are proposing to take up the widening of the road. Hence, this writ petition.

¶29

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶31

The petitioner claims to be the owner of the aforesaid properties and the respondents have taken up the work of widening Karwar-Ilkal road in Gadag area and the petitioner’s properties fall within the said area. The petitioner contends that, without acquisition of the said properties, the respondents have no right to widen the road in the properties of the petitioner.

¶32

Learned counsel appearing for the

¶33

respondents submits that, respondent Nos.2 to 4 will consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶34

The submission of learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4 are placed on record.

¶35

¶36

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of

¶37

directing respondent Nos.2 to 4 to consider the representations dated 21.09.2020 vide Annexure-E,

¶38

E1 and E2 within a period of two months from the

¶39

date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶40

Till the passing of order respondent Nos.2 to 4 are restrained from demolishing the property of

¶41

the petitioner.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

EM/-

Rajeshwari W/O Rajashekhar Ballari v. National Highwa Auathority of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeshwari W/O Rajashekhar Ballari v. National Highwa Auathority of India

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

Sri. Shrimant Pranay Vs the Deputy Director of Land Director

Sri.Suresh S/O Mahadevappa Doddamani Vs Smt.Kuntavva W/O Shankrappa Negalur

Malakkappa S/O Shivaningappa Patil Vs the Special Deputy Commissioner

Shri Lakshmi Venkateshwara Saw Mill Vs the Chief Conservator of Forest

Kallappa Murugeppa Awati Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Kallappa Murugeppa Awati Vs the Deputy Commissioner