Dismissed

Sri. J.S. Bharatesh S/O J.Sheshanagouda v. Chief Officer

Karnataka HC3 Nov 2023WP/114214/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the road widening action at Huvinahadagali as infructuous since the road was already widened, though petitioners retained the right to claim compensation via appropriate legal action.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as infructuous; petitioners retained right to claim compensation via appropriate legal action if encroachment occurred.

Sri. J.S. Bharatesh S/O J.Sheshanagouda Vs… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12890 WP No. 114214 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶3

DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 114214 OF 2015 (LB-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI J.S. BHARATESH S/O. J. SHESHANAGOUDA, AGE: 54 YEARS, R/O: JAIN STREET, TQ: HUVINAHADAGALLI, DIST:BELLARY-583219.

¶10

SRI J.S. NAGARAJ S/O. J. SHESHANAGOUDA, AGE: 51 YEARS, R/O: MAHAVIRA BADAVANE, BUS STAND LINK ROAD, HUVINAHADAGALI, DIST: BELLARY-583219.

¶11

SRI J. PADMARAJ S/O. J. SHESHANAGOUDA, AGE: 47 YEARS, R/O: HOUSE NO:10/408/1, BEHIND S.B.M., HUVINAHADAGALI, DIST: BELLARY-583219.

¶12

GIRIJA A BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A BYAHATTI

¶13

SMT. P.B. SINDHU W/O. PRAMOD BASTI, AGE: 44 YEARS, R/O:HOUSE NO.41, RAJEEV NAGAR, VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580020.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI J.S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

CHIEF OFFICER, TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, HUVINAHADAGALI, DIST: BALLARI.

¶18

THE TAHSILDAR, HUVINAHADAGALI, DISTRICT: BALLARI.

¶19

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12890 WP No. 114214 of 2015

¶20

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD SUB DIVISION, HUVINAHADAGALI,

¶21

DISTRICT: BALLARI.

¶22

THE PRESIDENT, TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, HUVINAHADAGALI, DIST: BALLARI.

¶23

CIRCLE INSPECTOR POLICE DEPARTMENT, HUVINAHADAGALI, DISTRICT: BALLARI.

¶24

THE MANAGER, THE STATE BANK OF MYSORE, HUVINAHADAGALI,

¶25

DISTRICT: BALLARI.

¶26

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R2, R3, R5 AND R7; SRI G.I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADV. FOR R1 AND R4; SRI S.K. HEGDE, ADV. FOR R6;)

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT TO QUASH THE ORDER NO.PU.SA.HU.HA/NOTICE/2015-16 DATED:27.11.2015 ISSUED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT, THE COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED HEREWITH AT ANNEXURE-A AND ALSO THE ENDORSEMENT NO.PU.SA.HU.HA/HIMBARAHA/2015-16 DATED:04.12.2015, ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT, THE COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED HEREWITH AT ANNEXURE-B AND SUCH OTHER RELIEFS.

¶30

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12890 WP No. 114214 of 2015

¶32

ORDER

¶33

The writ petition is filed challenging the action of respondent authorities in widening the road from Shastri Circle to KEB Circle at Huvinahadagali.

¶34

The advocate for the respondents submits that, the

¶35

road has already been widened and the writ petition has become infructuous.

¶36

Though the petitioners do not dispute the same,

¶37

however, submit that they have right to claim compensation from the respondents.

¶38

For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous.

¶39

However, it is needless to state that, if any portion of the property of the petitioners is encroached upon and the road is widened without following due process of law and the petitioners are desirous of claiming compensation for the same, they are always at liberty to initiate appropriate action in the

manner known to law.

Sd/JUDGE

gab/Ct-mck

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33

Sri. J.S. Bharatesh S/O J.Sheshanagouda v. Chief Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. J.S. Bharatesh S/O J.Sheshanagouda v. Chief Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Vikash Rathi Vs Kalaari Capital Management Ii, Llc

Mr. Mandar Dandekar Vs Kalaari Capital Management Ii, Llc

Mr. Abhinav Shukla Vs Kalaari Capital Management Ii, Llc

The Primary Agriculture Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Yasemeenbanu Vs the Cheif Engineer

Smt. Mamatajbegaum Vs the Chief Engineer