Dismissed

Karadi Devaraj S/Ok.Kotreppa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Jul 2023WP/101191/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a demolition notice issued by the Gram Panchayat. Respondents withdrew the notice during pendency to initiate proceedings under a different Act. Court dismissed the petition as infructuous but recorded a direction that property cannot be demolished without due process.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as infructuous due to withdrawal of notice; property cannot be demolished without due process of law.

Karadi Devaraj S/Ok.Kotreppa Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:7438 WP No. 101191 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 101191 OF 2023 (LB-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

KARADI DEVARAJ S/O. K. KOTREPPA, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: HALAVAGALU, TQ: HARAPANAHALLI-583 231, DIST: VIJAYANAGARA.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI K.L. PATIL, SRI S.S. BETURMATH, ADVOCATES)

¶10

AND:

¶11

VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI MKANKUPPI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT & PANCHAYAT RAJ, VIKAS SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶13

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, HARAPANAHALLI SUB-DIVISION, HARAPANAHALLI, DIST: VIJAYANAGARA-583 131.

¶14

THE PRESIDENT, HALAVAGALU GRAM PANCHAYAT, HARAPANAHALLI TALUK, DIST: VIJAYANAGARA-583 231.

¶15

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC-D:7438 WP No. 101191 of 2023

¶17

THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, HALAVAGALU GRAM PANCHAYAT, HARAPANAHALLI TALUK, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR-583 231.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP FOR R1 & R2; SRI V. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4)

¶20

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 30/01/2023 JOINTLY ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4 VIDE ANNEXURE-F; A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO INITIATE APPROPRIATE PROCEEDINGS FOR ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER IF THEY ARE REQUIRED FOR WIDENING OF THE ROAD, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This petition is filed by the petitioner questioning the

¶25

impugned notice dated 30.01.2023 issued by respondent No.3.

¶26

It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is the owner of house situated at Halavagalu, Tq. Harapanahalli. That petitioner after

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:7438 WP No. 101191 of 2023

¶28

obtaining the permission from respondent No.4 has constructed house and residing in the said house since several years as absolute owner of the house property as well as shop. It is also contended that panchayath has allotted the number to the said house and shop and issued extract in favour of petitioner. Based on which, petitioner has been paying taxes to the 4^th respondent/panchayath and has been in physical actual possession of the house and shop.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the resolution is passed by 4^th respondent/panchayath to widen the road for the purpose of construction of drainage and in doing so, the Grama panchayath has taken a unilateral decision to widen the road to the extent of 25' feet on both sides of the road. Accordingly, the 4^th respondent has issued notice dated 30.01.2023 Under Section 72(1) and (2) of the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayath Raj Act, 1993 to demolish the house and other attached properties. It is the grievance of petitioner that

¶30

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:7438 WP No. 101191 of 2023

¶31

by issuance of this notice, respondent No.4 is tactfully making efforts to demolish the properties belonging to the petitioner, who is the absolute owner and who has constitutional right to remain in the properties on the basis of right, title and interest over the same and the same cannot be forcefully taken away by way of demolition or without proper acquisition by respondent No.4. Vide impugned notice, respondent No.4 has sought for demolition of front portion of the house and shop of the petitioner.

¶32

Aggrieved by the said impugned notice, petitioner has approached this Court and has obtained an interim order not to demolish the house and shop belonging to the petitioner. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned notice issued by respondent No.4 is illegal and arbitrary as respondent No.4 does not have any authority or right, title over the house belonging to the petitioner. Whereas, the authorities are illegally trying to encroach upon the properties

¶33

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:7438 WP No. 101191 of 2023

¶34

belonging to the petitioner and intending to demolish the house/shops without proper notice and due process of law.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended

¶36

that he has been residing in the premises for since many years and the impugned notice and alleged encroachment is baseless and without any material on record. He also contended that if his house is demolished, he would be put to streets without shelter as he is residing and running the shop in his own independent right. Hence, he contended that the impugned notice is not sustainable in law and the same requires to be quashed. During the pendency of this petition, learned counsel for respondent No.4 has filed a memo dated 12.07.2023. The memo reads as under;

¶37

"The Respondents No.3 & 4 humbly submits that:

¶38

1. It is submitted that the Petitioner herein seeking the relief of issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned notices dated: 30-01-2023 issued by the Respondent No.3 & 4 vide ANNEXURES:F.

¶39

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:7438 WP No. 101191 of 2023

¶40

2. It is submitted that from the averments of the petition it discloses that the main contention urged in the petition is that issuance of impugned notice is violating the natural justice without affording any opportunities to the petitioner.

¶41

3. Hence, this regard in order to avoid future complications, the Respondent No.4 Gram Panchayath has took decision and undertake hereby that they will withdraw the notice issued under ANNEXURE:F, reserving liberty to initiate fresh proceedings under the provisions of The Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974. Resultantly, the writ petition does not survive for consideration and the same is to be dismissed.

¶42

Hence this Memo."

¶43

The sum and substance of the memo is that, respondent No.4/Grama Panchayath has taken a decision to withdraw the impugned notice issued against the petitioner herein and that they would initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. Vide memo, respondents have sought for liberty to initiate the

¶44

7 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:7438 WP No. 101191 of 2023

¶45

proceedings Under The Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974. As according to the respondents, the properties in question are belonging to the Government which is seriously disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of filing of the memo by respondent No.4, who seeks to withdraw the impugned notice dated 30.01.2023, the present writ petition which is filed questioning the said notice would not survive for consideration any more as the notice is sought to be withdrawn by respondent No.4/Grama Panchayatn. However, it is relevant to note that pursuant to initiation of the impugned notice, this Court passed an interim order in favour of the petitioner that his property shall not be demolished and the same is continued till today. It is appropriate that the property of petitioner whether house or shops cannot be demolished without due process of law.

¶46

Be that as it may, the fact remains that respondent No.4 intends to withdraw the impugned notice

¶47

8 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:7438 WP No. 101191 of 2023

¶48

dated 30.01.2023. The petitioner cannot force the respondents to continue with the litigation when they do not want to continue in the impugned notice and want to withdraw the same. The apprehension of the petitioner is that he will be thrown out of the shops and house premises and his house/shops will be demolished by respondent No.4 forcefully. I am afraid it is a assumption which is premature to be considered as the impugned notice ordered for demolition since being withdrawn, no order further can be passed by this Court. However, it is made clear that petitioner property whether shops or house shall not be demolished without taking procedure as per due process of law. Under the circumstances, I do not find any reason to continue with this petition as this petition has becomes infructuous in view of withdrawal of the impugned notice by respondent No.4/Grama panchayath. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶49

ORDER

¶50

i) Writ petition is allowed.

¶51

NC: 2023:KHC-D:7438 WP No. 101191 of 2023

¶52

¶53

ii) Respondent No.4 is at liberty to initiate

¶54

appropriate action in accordance with law.

¶55

iii) It is made clear that property of the petitioner i.e., house/shops shall not be demolished without due

¶56

process of law.

¶57

Sd/JUDGE

¶58

AM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0

Karadi Devaraj S/Ok.Kotreppa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karadi Devaraj S/Ok.Kotreppa 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

K T G Ayurvedic Medical College and Hospital Vs the Union of India

Basappa S/O Mukkanna Swagi @ Hotti Vs Umesh S/O Basappa Swagi @ Hotti

Sri. Suresh S/O Sadashiv Purud, Vs Modinsab S/O Khajameensab Khajasab Bagawan

Smt.Neelamma W/O. Late Kenchappa Vs Sri.Karthik

Shri Bhimappa S/O Basappa Sutagatti Vs Shri Basappa Aliyas Shivalingappa S/O Siddappa Sutagatti

Aremallapurad Sumant S/O Kannappa Vs the State of Karnataka