Petitioner sought mandamus to act against an alleged unauthorized structure on government land based on a notice dated 30.05.2024. The Court held no directions could issue as the notice did not mention the provisions under which it was issued, and disposed of the petition observing official respondents may act under the relevant enactment.
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 AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 16509 OF 2024 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
MRS. CECILIA DSOUZA W/O IVAN DSOUZA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT 'HOLY FAMILY HOUSE' ALIYOOR, NELLIKARU VILLAGE, MOODBIDRI TALUK, D.K.
…PETITIONER
(BY SMT. SHARAL MENEZES, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ADLENE STEPHANIE MENDES, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by VANAMALA N
Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
NC: 2024:KHC:52387 WP No. 16509 of 2024
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SPOORTHI V., HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. SUYOG HERELE E., ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE R-2 TO TAKE NECESSARY ACTION AGAINST THE R-4 PURSUANT TO THE ORDER DATED. 30.05.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-A REGARDING THE UNAUTHORIZED STRUCTURE CONSTRUCTED BY R-4 IN THE GOVERNMENT PROPERTY SITUATED IN SURVEY NO. 124/1A OF NELLIKARU VILLAGE OF MOODBIDRI TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT, WITHIN THE PUBLIC ROAD MARGIN OF MOODBIDRI-HOSMARU DISTRICT MAIN ROAD AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner, who asserts ownership of certain
property in Nellikaru Village, Moodabidri Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District, has sought for directions to the first to third respondents to act against the fourth respondent relying upon the Notice dated 30.05.2024 [ Annexure-A ] issued by the second respondent. The petitioner asserts that the fourth respondent has unauthorizedly occupied Government land at Sy.No.124/4 of Nellikaru Village and therefore the Notice is issued.
This Court on 03.12.2024, on perusal of the impugned notice, has called upon the jurisdictional Assistant Executive Engineer with the PWD to place on record the provisions under which Notices are issued and the process that is contemplated for the fourth respondent's eviction. Smt. Spoorthi V., the
learned High Court Government Pleader, submits that her instructions are that the impugned Notice is under the provisions of the relevant Public Premises Act and based on the response that is filed by the fourth respondent, the proceedings will be initiated under that enactment. Sri. Suyog Herale E., a learned counsel, is permitted to represent the fourth respondent, and the office is directed to show his representation.
This Court is of the considered view that no directions can be issued based on the Notice dated 30.05.2024 as it does not mention the provisions under which it is issued and that it would be incumbent for the authority concerned to inform the fourth respondent about the enactment under which action is proposed to be taken.
NC: 2024:KHC:52387 WP No. 16509 of 2024
Hence, the petition stands disposed of observing that it would be open to the official respondents to act under the relevant enactment.
Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE
RD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44
1 issue framed by the court
Whether directions can be issued on a notice that does not disclose the statutory provisions under which it is issued.
Mrs. Cecilia Dsouza W/o Ivan Dsouza
The State of Karnataka, Department of Public Works
The Assistant Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Mangaluru Sub-Division
The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Moodbidri
Mr. Sunil Poojary S/o Shekar Poojary
B M SHYAM PRASAD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
