Allowed

Narpat Mehata S/O Late Sukharaj Mehata v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Feb 2024WP/100618/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition filed by property owners to restrain the Tahsildar from demolishing their structures. The Court held that authorities must follow due process, including issuing show cause notices, before taking action, and that building plan violations fall under the jurisdiction of the concerned municipality, not the Tahsildar.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition allowed; Mandamus issued directing respondents to act in accordance with law; Demolition activities restrained until legal compliance is ensured.

Narpat Mehata S/O Late Sukharaj Mehata Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:2268 WP No. 100618 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶4

DHARWAD BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 100618 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

NARPAT MEHATA S/O LATE SUKHARAJ MEHATA AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,

¶11

PRAKASH MEHATA S/O LATE SUKHARAJ MEHATA AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,

¶12

SANTOSH MEHATA S/O LATE SUKHARAJ MEHATA AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,

¶13

GIRIJA A BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A BYAHATTI

¶14

HASMUKH MEHATA S/O LATE SUKHARAJ MEHATA AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,

¶15

ALL ARE R/O. BASAVESHWARA BAZAAR, HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI, DIST. VIJAYANAGARA 583212

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI. T HANUMAREDDY., ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2268 WP No. 100618 of 2024

¶21

M S BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU 560001

¶22

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HOSAPETE VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT-583201

¶23

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HOSAPETE VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT 583201

¶24

THE THASILDAR HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI, VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT 583212

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN UPPAR., AGA FOR R1 TO R4)

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.4 NOT TO DEMOLISH COMMERCIAL BUILDING OF THE BEARING PROPERTY NO.116(B) PAIKI MEASURING TOTALLY 856.125 SQUARE FEET AND ALSO RCC BUILDING THEREON MEASURING 663.75 OF THE PETITIONER NO.1, OPEN LAND BEARING PROPERTY NO.114(A) PAIKI MEASURING TOTALLY 840.375 SQUARE FEET AND ALSO RCC BUILDING THEREON MEASURING 663.75 SQUARE FEET OF THE PETITIONER NO.2, OPEN LAND BEARING, PROPERTY NO.114(A) PAIKI MEASURING TOTALLY 824.620 SQUARE FEET AND ALSO RCC BUILDING THEREON MEASURING 663.75 SQUARE FEET OF THE PETITIONER NO.3 AND ANOTHER OPEN SITE BEARING NO.116B/1 PAIKI TOTALLY MEASURING 2268.75 SQUARE FEET OF THE PETITIONER NO.3, OPEN LAND BEARING PROPERTY NO.116B/1 PAIKI MEASURING TOTALLY 2246.25 OF THE PETITIONER NO.4 AND ANOTHER PROPERTY BEARING NO.114(A) PAIKI OPEN SITE MEASURING 808.870 SQUARE FEET AND BUILDING THERE ON MEASURING 663.75 SQUARE FEET OF THE PETITIONER NO.4 AND ALL THE ABOVE SAID PROPERTIES, SITUATED AT NEW WARD NO.2 AT HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI, VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICTS OF THE PETITIONERS AND ETC.

¶28

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

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2268 WP No. 100618 of 2024

¶30

ORDER

¶31

The learned AGA accepts notice for respondents No.1 to 4.

¶32

The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶33

a. Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.4 not to demolish commercial building of the bearing Property No.116(B) Paiki measuring totally 856.125 square feet and also Rcc building thereon measuring 663.75 of the Petitioner No.1, open land bearing property No.114(A) Paiki measuring totally 840.375 square feet and also Rcc building thereon measuring 663.75 square feet of the petitioner No.2, open land bearing, Property No.114(A) Paiki measuring totally 824.620 square feet and also Rcc building thereon measuring 663.75 square feet of the petitioner No.3 and another open site bearing No.116B/1 Paiki totally measuring 2268.75 square feet of the petitioner No.3, open land bearing property No.116B/1 Paiki measuring totally 2246.25 of the petitioner no.4 and another property bearing No.114(A) Paiki open site measuring 808.870 square feet and building there on measuring 663.75 square feet of the petitioner No.4 and all the above said properties, situated at new ward No.2 At Hagaribommanahalli, Vijayanagar districts of the petitioners.

¶34

b. Issue such other writ or direction in the circumstances of the case.

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2268 WP No. 100618 of 2024

¶36

The petitioners claim to be the owners of the land bearing Nos.116(B)(P), 114(A)(P), 116B/1(P) of Hagaribommanahalli, Vijayanagara District and they claim to have put up construction on the said property after obtaining necessary plan sanction and building license from the jurisdictional municipal authorities.

¶37

Respondent No.4 – Tahsildar having carried out a survey and measurement of the property and marked the building put up, the petitioners apprehend that respondent No.4, without following the due process of law, is likely to demolish either the whole or part of the building belonging to the petitioners in the aforesaid properties. In that background the petitioners are before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

¶38

Mere survey or marking of a building cannot be a reason for demolition of the building. Any authority,

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2268 WP No. 100618 of 2024

¶40

being governmental or statutory authorities, would be required to follow the applicable law and thereafter take necessary action in accordance with law. If the Tahsildar is empowered to take any action under any particular law as regards the construction put up by the petitioners, then necessarily the Tahsildar would have to issue necessary show cause notices, receive the replies thereto, consider the same, and thereafter pass necessary orders, and only then take action.

¶41

If there is any violation of the building plan or sanction, it is not the Tahsildar who could take any action. It would be for the concerned municipality to take necessary action in terms of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1976. In that view of the matter, I pass the following:

¶42

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2268 WP No. 100618 of 2024

¶43

ORDER

¶44

i) The Writ Petition is allowed.

¶45

ii) A mandamus is issued directing the respondents to take action only in accordance with law and not otherwise. Needless to say until then no coercive steps or demolition activity to take place as regards the property of the Petitioner.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

PRS

¶48

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41

Narpat Mehata S/O Late Sukharaj Mehata v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narpat Mehata S/O Late Sukharaj Mehata 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Godavarthi Adinarayana S/O Chinnapallayya Vs the Canara Bank Branch Gangavathi

Raghunath Govind Achari. Vs State of Karnataka

Ashok S/O Dundappa Kupati Vs the Chief Secretary

Nagaraj Ganapati Bhat Alias Madguni Vs F M Ganapati Parameshwar Bhat Since Deceased by Lrs.

M/S Kathyayane Electo Mac Vs the Manager

Shri. Ashok Vs the State of Karnataka