Writ petition challenging interference with peaceful possession of property was disposed of relying on directions from a coordinate bench regarding enquiry into rival property claims by Deputy Commissioner.
Writ petition disposed of applying directions from W.P. No.11568/2020 for Deputy Commissioner to initiate enquiry into property claims.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.15550/2021 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN :
Sri M.V.Manjunath, Aged about 69 years, S/o Late M.Y.Venkataramana Setty, R/a JCR 3rd Cross, “Sunandha Nilaya”, Chitradurga-577 501.
.. Petitioner
( By Sri Chandrashekar P.V., Advocate )
AND:
2
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India praying to issue direction restraining the respondents from interfering with the petitioner peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property in any manner including the demolishing of the structure standing thereon or utilisation of the schedule property, other than through due process of law and etc.,
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing in `B’ group this day, the Court made the following :
ORDER
Learned counsel appearing for both sides submit that the
issue involved in this writ petition is covered by a judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.11568/2020 (LB-RES) ( Sri M.A.Sami –vs- The State of Karnataka and others) , wherein this Court has directed as follows :
3
“ The directions issued in the above stated decision reads as follows:
(i) The Deputy Commissioner of Tumkur District shall hold the enquiry and take a decision as to whether the properties in question belong to the petitioners or are vested in the Municipal Council.
(ii) The petitioners shall appear before the Deputy Commissioner on 7.12.2011 without waiting for any notice from him. On the said day (7.12.2011) the petitioners shall produce the documents in support of their claims regarding the extent and ownership of their properties.
(iii) The City Municipal Council shall also appear on the said day and furnish the documents in support of its claims that the properties in question are vested in it. Further, if any of the petitioner’s title deeds, etc., are with the City Municipal Council, the same shall also be produced by it before the Deputy Commissioner. It is also open to the petitioners to apply for the copies of any documents under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and obtain them and produce the same before the Deputy Commissioner.
(iv) It is made clear that it is open to the Deputy Commissioner to take the assistance of the Tumkur Urban Development Authority.
4
(v) On holding the enquiry, the Deputy Commissioner shall pass the order in the matter of rival claims being advanced by the City Municipal Council and the petitioners.
(vi) If, on holding the enquiry the Deputy Commissioner is satisfied that the properties in question belong to the petitioners, they cannot be utilised for the road-widening purpose unless (a) they are compulsorily acquired, or (b) they are purchased after holding private negotiations with the petitioners or (c) on taking them on lease basis, etc.
(vii) If the Deputy Commissioner on holding the enquiry finds that the properties in question belong to the City Municipal Council and that the petitioners have encroached them, the competent authorities are bound to evict them, but in a manner known to law.
(viii) The Deputy Commissioner shall pass the appropriate orders within six weeks’ from today. All the parties shall co-operate with the Deputy Commissioner in the speedy disposal of the disputes raised or to be raised.
(ix) If the petitioners are not satisfied with the order, which may eventually be passed by the Deputy Commissioner, it is always open to them to approach the Civil Court. The Deputy Commissioner and/or the competent authorities shall not enforce the order for a period of one week from the date of the issuance of the order to the petitioners.”
5
Subject to the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of, reserving liberty to the respondent-authorities to take necessary action in accordance with law and by following the guidelines (extracted above) laid down in W.P.No.27955 of 2009 and connected petition disposed of on 16.11.2011. The 2nd respondent Deputy Commissioner shall initiate enquiry as stated above and pass orders expeditiously.”
Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of in the same terms
as indicated above.
Sd/JUDGE
bk/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the court should dispose of the petition by applying the directions issued in a coordinate bench judgment regarding rival claims of property ownership.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sri M.A.Sami –vs- The State of Karnataka and othersFollowed¶22
Writ Petition No.11568/2020 (LB-RES) (Sri M.A.Sami vs The State of Karnataka and others)
Sri M.V.Manjunath
The State of Karnataka, Public Works Department
The Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga District
M. Nagaprasanna
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
