Disposed

N.S. Murthy v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Apr 2022WP/4941/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka granted a temporary direction under Articles 226 and 227 mandating the third respondent to consider the petitioner’s grievance regarding unauthorized land use for road widening. A status quo was ordered pending the decision on the representation.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 3rd respondent to consider petitioner's representation and pass an order within six weeks, with a direction to maintain status quo on possession.

N.S. Murthy Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF APRIL 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.4941 OF 2022 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

N.S. MURTHY S/O. SRIRAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS NAGANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT KARNATAKA STATE-563 101. ... PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. BATHE GOWDA K.V. ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND :

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, M.S. BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶11

THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC WORK DEPARTMENT SESHADRI ROAD, SJP CAMPUS, NEAR K.R. CIRCEL, BENALURU KARNATAKA-560 001.

¶12

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORK DEPARTMENT BRINDAVAN (COURT) CIRCLE

¶13

¶14

MULBAGAL ROAD, MB ROAD, KOLAR, KARNATAKA-563 101.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORK DEPARTMENT SRINIVASAPURA TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101. ... RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. M. VINOD KUMAR, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-4)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO COSNIDER THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE PETTIONER AS PER ANNEXURE-E COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF CONSIDERATION DATED 17.02.2022 AND TO TAKE ACTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION AND TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO INTERFERE WITH THE PEACEFUL POSSESSION ENJOYMENT OF THE PETITIONER DESCRIBED IN ANNEXURE-A COPY OF SALE DEED DATED 13.12.2019 AND NOT TO VACATE OR DEMOLISH THE SHOP OF THE PETITIONER.

¶18

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

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondents 1 to 4.

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶22

learned AGA for respondents. Perused the writ papers.

¶23

¶24

Petitioner is before this Court under Article 226

¶25

of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation made by the petitioner as at Annexure – E dated 17.02.2022 and also for a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule to Annexure – ‘A’ – sale deed.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶27

petitioner is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of land bearing V.P. No.61, property bearing No.61 measuring East to West 17 Square Feet and North to South 9 Square Feet situated at Dalasanura Gram Panchayath, Kasaba Hobli, Olegerenahalli Cross, Srinivasapura Taluk, Kolar District.

¶28

¶29

It is the grievance of the petitioner that,

¶30

without issuing any notice and without initiating action in accordance with law, the respondents-authorities are utilising his land for the purpose of widening the road.

¶31

Learned AGA submits that the grievance of the petitioner would be looked into by considering his representation at Annexure – E.

¶32

It is settled position of law that without initiating proceedings in accordance with law or without following due process of law, no person can be dispossessed or deprived of his property. In the instant case, the grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are utilising his land for widening the road without initiating any proceedings in accordance with law.

¶33

¶34

In the above backdrop, it would be

¶35

appropriate to direct the 3^rd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 17.02.2022 (Annexure – E) and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Till the consideration of the representation as at Annexure – E dated 17.02.2022, the respondents shall maintain status-quo with regard to the possession.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

brn

N.S. Murthy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.S. Murthy v. the State of Karnataka

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

Mr. Amit Banerji Vs Ms. Anuradha Nehra

C.M.Mupasil @ Saddam Vs Union Bank of India

M/S Kanchana Industries Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

M/S Radiant Jasmine Properties Vs M/S Tumkur Grain Merchants Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Shantha Prakash Vs The Assistant Commissioner

Adil Shariff Vs the Principal Cheif Conservator