A writ petition challenging proposed demolition for road widening was dismissed as infructuous because the respondents submitted evidence showing the road widening work was already completed without affecting the petitioners' property.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
WRIT PETITION NO. 107203 OF 2015 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
GIRIJA A BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARANTAKA DHARWAD BENCH
(PETITIONER NO.2, P.D. MAHESH IS REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER SRI. P.D. MANJUNATH I.E. PETITIONER NO.1)
…PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. V. VIDYA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA FOR R1, R2 & R5; SRI. C.V. ANGADI, ADV. FOR R3; SRI. Y. LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADV. FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION OF THE RESPONDENTS IN SEEKING TO DEMOLISH THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONERS AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ARBITRARY AND ARE IN VIOLATION OF RULE OF LAW AND FURTHER DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO DEMOLISH THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONERS IN THE GUISE OF WIDENING OF THE EXISTING ROAD AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
Learned counsel for the petitioners is absent.
Learned AGA appearing for respondents No.1, 2 and 5
files a memo along with the letter dated 06.09.2024 stating that the road widening work is already completed without affecting the property of the petitioners and so also produced the photographs.
In view of the memo that the respondents have not touched upon the properties of the respective petitioners, the question of considering the writ petition does not arise and the petition also does not survive for consideration since there is no any threat in view of the letter dated 06.09.2024 and that already road widening work has been completed.
Hence the writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous in view of completion of work.
Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE
gab CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48
1 provisions across 1 enactments
P.D. Manjunath and P.D. Mahesh
State of Karnataka
H.P. Sandesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
