Allowed

Shri.Sadananad S/O Bhaskar Revanakar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Jul 2024WP/112395/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner whose commercial property was taken for road widening without compensation sought transfer of ownership of leased alternative sites. The Court quashed communications refusing transfer, holding Section 176 restrictions inapplicable and Article 300-A rights violated, and directed sanction and execution of sale deed.

What did the court decide?

Communications dated 30.05.2018 and 22.07.2019 quashed; Respondent No.1 to reconsider proposal within eight weeks; Respondent No.2 to execute sale deed within eight weeks of sanction.

Shri.Sadananad S/O Bhaskar Revanakar Vs the State of… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:9041 WP No. 112395 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JULY, 2024 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 112395 OF 2019 (LB-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SHRI. SADANANAD S/O. BHASKAR REVANAKAR, AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: "GEETA" HIND HOUSING SOCIETY, HINDWADI, BELAGAVI-590011.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. A.S. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TO THE DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, M.S. BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU.

¶12

THE COMMISSIONER, CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, BELAGAVI.

¶13

ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶14

THE ADMINISTRATOR, CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, BELAGAVI.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1; SRI. ARAVIND D. KULKARNI, ADV. FOR R2 & R3)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION DATED 30.05.2018 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN NO.NA AA E 106 ACB 2013 AS PER ANNEXURE-R AND THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION DATED 22.07.2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN NO.MA NA BE/KAM SHA/MASTER PLAN/CR/2019-20 AS PER ANNEXURE-S; WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9041 WP No. 112395 of 2019

¶19

DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 EITHER TO TRANSFER THE OWNERSHIP RIGHTS OF THE SITE BEARING NO.8,9,10 & 11 SITUATED IN C.T.S.NO.218 (OF SHUKRAVAR PETH, TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI) MEASURING TO AN EXTENT OF 378 SQ.FT. COMPRISING OF A COMMERCIAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTED OVER THE SAME MEASURING TO AN EXTENT OF 567 SQ.FT INCLUDING PROJECTIONS OF SLAB AND STEPS ETC., SITUATED AT OLD VEGETABLE MARKET, NEAR KALAMANDIR, TILAKAWADI, BELGAUM IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER BY CONFERRING THE OWNERSHIP RIGHTS OF THE SAME.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This petition challenges two key documents: the notification dated 30.05.2018 issued by Respondent No.1 to Respondent No.2-Corporation, and the subsequent communication dated 22.07.2019 from Respondent No.2 to the Petitioner. The latter communication indicates that the petition property cannot be transferred due to a restriction under Sub-Clause 6(b)(iii) of Section 176 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The Petitioner disputes the validity of these documents.

¶23

Arguments were presented by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the learned High Court Government

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9041 WP No. 112395 of 2019

¶25

Pleader (HCGP) for Respondent No.1, and the learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. The Court considered the submissions from all parties involved.

¶26

Facts of the Case:

¶27

The Petitioner lost a valuable property located at Congress Road, bearing CTS No.442/2, due to a road widening project undertaken by Respondent No.2Corporation. This property was utilized by Respondent No.2 without providing any compensation, which is an admitted fact. Aggrieved by this action, the Petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.65886/2009. The relevant portion of that judgment acknowledges the Petitioner’s ownership of the property and the Corporation’s failure to compensate, directing Respondent No.2 to either allot the Petitioner the premises on a perpetual lease or grant ownership, considering the lack of compensation for the property lost during the road widening process. Paragraph No.4 would be relevant. The same is extracted which reads as under:

¶28

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9041 WP No. 112395 of 2019

¶29

“4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the owner of the property bearing CTS No. 442/2 (442/B) situated at Congress Road, Tilakwadi, Belgaum. The said property was taken over by Respondent no.2Corporation for widening of the road without paying any compensation and without recourse to land acquisition process. However, in order to rehabilitate the petitioner, he was allotted alternative site nos. 8,9,10 and 11 by virtue of order at Annexure-A dated 11.5.94. Since the petitioner is not granted any compensation and as he is forcibly evicted, the petitioner is justified in asking either for allotting the premises which is already given to him on lease basis or for perpetual lease basis. According to the petitioner, the property allotted in his favour on lease is lesser in extent than the property lost by him.

¶30

Be that as it may, the decision has to be taken by the second respondent as per law. Therefore the respondents are directed to consider the request of the petitioner either for conferring the ownership of the demised sites bearing no. 8, 9, 10 and 11 measuring 378 sqft. In toto situated at Tilakwadi , Old Vegetable Market, Near kalamandır, Belgaum or for granting the same on perpetual lease for 99 years. While considering the request, the respondents should keep in mind that the petitioner is not granted any compensation for the property which he has lost in road widening process. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.”

¶31

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9041 WP No. 112395 of 2019

¶32

Paragraph No.4 of the earlier judgment clearly establishes the Petitioner’s entitlement to seek either ownership or a perpetual lease for the allotted premises. This entitlement is based on the lack of compensation for the property lost during the road widening process, thus recognizing the Petitioner’s right to proper rehabilitation by Respondent No.2.

¶33

Respondent No.2-Corporation, upon receiving the Petitioner’s representation requesting the execution of a sale deed for the property (shop Nos. 8, 9, 10, and 11 in CTS No.218), proposed this to Respondent No.1 for sanction. However, Respondent No.1 issued the impugned communication dated 30.05.2018, directing Respondent No.2 to dispose of the properties strictly according to Section 176 of the Act. The Petitioner challenges this communication, and the subsequent one dated 22.07.2019 from Respondent No.2, as these communications obstruct the fulfillment of the Petitioner’s rightful claim.

¶34

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9041 WP No. 112395 of 2019

¶35

While the impugned communication by

¶36

Respondent No.1 aligns with Section 176 of the Act, the restrictions under this section are not applicable to the present circumstances. Past judgments, including those in W.P.No.100494/2023, emphasize that the State’s actions must comply with the law and respect constitutional rights under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, which protects the right to property. The legal precedents assert that the State cannot interfere with property rights except through due legal processes, ensuring that the rights of property owners are safeguarded.

¶37

The Court reviewed significant past judgments, including Bhim Singh v. Union of India (1981), B.K. Ravichandra v. Union of India (2020), and Bajranga v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021). These cases reinforce the principle that the right to property, though not a fundamental right, is a valuable constitutional right under Article 300-A. The Supreme Court’s consistent stance is that the State and its instrumentalities cannot

¶38

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9041 WP No. 112395 of 2019

¶39

interfere with a citizen’s property rights without following due process of law. This principle is crucial in ensuring that the government acts within legal bounds when dealing with private property.

¶40

The State is bound to accord sanction to the resolution because the Petitioner’s commercial shop, where he conducted his jewellery business, was utilized for a road-widening project without following the legal process of property acquisition or providing due compensation. This unauthorized utilization of the Petitioner’s property not only deprived him of his livelihood but also violated his constitutional right to property under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Legal precedents have established that any deprivation of property must be carried out in accordance with the law and accompanied by fair compensation. The State, by not sanctioning the resolution that seeks to rectify this injustice by providing an alternative property, is perpetuating the violation of the Petitioner’s rights. The Court recognizes that the

¶41

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9041 WP No. 112395 of 2019

¶42

Petitioner’s commercial property held significant economic value and potential, and the failure to provide an equivalent alternative site is a disregard of the principles of justice and fairness mandated by the Constitution. Therefore, the State has a legal and moral obligation to sanction the resolution to ensure that the Petitioner’s right to property is upheld and to correct the high-handed and unlawful actions of the Respondent No.2-Corporation.

¶43

Given the Petitioner’s prior loss of a prime commercial property and the fact that the property was utilized without due compensation, the Petitioner is legally entitled to a proper alternative arrangement. The impugned communications dated 30.05.2018 and 22.07.2019 are found to be legally unsustainable, as they contradict the Petitioner’s rights under Article 300-A. The Court concludes that Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have a legal obligation to provide the Petitioner with an alternative commercial property, recognizing the Petitioner’s legal

¶44

9 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9041 WP No. 112395 of 2019

¶45

entitlement and the wrongful utilization of his original

¶46

property.

¶47

In light of the observations and legal principles discussed, the Court orders as follows:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

(i) The writ petition is allowed;

¶50

(ii) The impugned communication dated 30.05.2018 issued by Respondent No.1

¶51

(Annexure-R) is hereby quashed;

¶52

(iii) The communication dated 22.07.2019 issued by Respondent No.2 to the Petitioner (Annexure-S) is also quashed;

¶53

(iv) Respondent No.1 shall reconsider the proposal from Respondent No.2 and pass appropriate orders in line with the observations made by this Court within eight weeks from the receipt of this order;

¶54

10 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9041 WP No. 112395 of 2019

¶55

(v) After receiving sanction from Respondent No.1, Respondent No.2 shall expedite the process and execute the sale deed for the property already leased to the Petitioner within eight weeks from the date of communication of

¶56

the sanction;

¶57

Sd/JUDGE

¶58

SVH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

Shri.Sadananad S/O Bhaskar Revanakar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri.Sadananad S/O Bhaskar Revanakar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.M. Basava S/O Revansidda Sharma Vs State of Karnataka

Abubakkar.M.Beside Nice Bakery Vs the Human Resource Management

Dr. Chidanand Vs Honble Secretary Vivek Bhasme

The Chairman Vs Shanmukhappa S/O. Channappa Rudrabai

Shri.Ravindra S/O Sadanand Revanakar Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Shri. Jagadish Vs the State of Karnataka