Writ petition challenging demolition action and alleged land acquisition/procedure. Court directed authorities to conduct an enquiry with opportunity of hearing regarding petitioner's alleged encroachment within three months.
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.
NC: 2023:KHC:36425 WP No. 16111 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT PETITION NO. 16111 OF 2016 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
SIDDALINGAIAH @ SIDDALINGE GOWDA S/O LATE MAYKE SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT 'SIDDESHWARA NILAYA' 3RD CROSS, BANASHANKARI MAIN ROAD TUMKUR-572 101.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. H V PRAVEEN GOWDA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka
NC: 2023:KHC:36425 WP No. 16111 of 2016
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. SAKSHI M. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SUBRAMANYA R., ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) ISSUE A WRIT, DIRECTION OR ANY OTHER WRIT DECLARING THAT THE ACTION OF THE RESPONDENTS TO DEMOLISH THE PORTION OF THE BUILDING EXISTING ON THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY TO THIS WRIT PETITION IS WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE MANDATORY PROVISIONS CONTAINED UNDER 'THE RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013'.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri. H.V.Praveen Gowda, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Smt. Sakshi M.Krishna, learned counsel for Sri. Subramanya R, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
2. Present petition is for a declaration that the
action of the respondents in demolishing the portion of the petition schedule property to be one without due process
of law and is contrary to the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013 and for further direction not to demolish portion of the building without acquisition or payment of compensation as provided under the aforesaid Act.
respondent-Municipal Corporation referring to a survey sketch produced today along with a memo dated
NC: 2023:KHC:36425 WP No. 16111 of 2016
06.10.2023 submits that there was already a road existing from Kunigal and Tumkur road to Uppara halli auto stand road and as per the survey sketch an extent of 187 sq. ft. in Sy.No.53/3, which is subject matter of the present petition, has been encroached upon by the petitioner and all that the respondent-authorities have are doing is removal of the said encroachment, while they have not acquired any portion of the land of the petitioner. Learned counsel further refers to Annexure-D which is a notice issued under Section 287 of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 and submits that even before any action could be taken respondent-authorities had indeed called upon the petitioner to furnish the documents referred to therein and without complying with the demand made thereunder the petitioner is before this Court stalling the entire process of formation of road. Hence, seeks for expeditious disposal of the matter.
5. Heard. Perused the records.
not avers for formation of a road. His limited grievance is
if the respondent-authorities are forming the road by utilizing property of the petitioner, respondents shall do so in the manner known to law. In other words, the respondent-authorities should acquire the land belonging to the petitioner and pay the compensation and without doing the same, they may not be permitted to proceed further in the matter.
a survey sketch has contended that it is not acquiring any portion of land of the petitioner, while on the other hand, petitioner himself has encroached upon the existing road. Thus, it appears to be a disputed question of fact pertaining to petitioner encroaching upon the public road. Further respondent-authorities have by notice produced at Annexure-D called upon the petitioner to furnish certain documents.
All contentions of the parties are kept open.
With the above observation, petition is disposed of.
Sd/JUDGE
RU
2 issues framed by the court
Whether demolition and alleged encroachment proceedings can proceed without a proper enquiry and hearing on the disputed factual claim.
Whether respondents must acquire land and pay compensation under RTFC Act before utilizing petitioner's property.
Siddalingaiah @ Siddalinge Gowda
State of Karnataka
Tumkura Mahanagara Palike
Executive Engineers Tumkure Mahanagara Palike
M.G.S. Kamal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
