The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition seeking an injunction against the demolition of petitioner's house. The Court held that the averments were vague, no conversion order existed for the agricultural land, and injunctive relief could not be granted under Articles 226/227 without concrete proof of threat.
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
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
WRIT PETITION NO.200750 OF 2017 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT.KAMALABAI W/O SALABAYYA HIREMATH, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O: P NO 138, SY NO 33/1A, GACHINKATTI COLONY, VIJAYPUR – 585 103.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. BASAVAKIRAN G.R., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. D.P.AMBEKAR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: High Court Of Karnataka
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VEERANAGOWDA.M.BIRADAR., AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. AMRESH.S.ROJA., ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Sri.Basavakiran.G.R., learned counsel on behalf of Sri.D.P.Ambekar., for the petitioner, Sri.Veeranagowda M.Biradar., learned AGA for respondents 1 & 2 and Sri.Amresh.S.Roja., learned counsel for respondent No.3 have appeared in person.
the buildings in the said street alleging that there is an
encroachment. Hence, challenging the action of the third respondent the petitioner is before this Court.
The petitioner has invoked the Writ jurisdiction apprehending that the third respondent would take action for demolition of the building. Furthermore, the prayer sought in the Writ Petition is in the form of injunctive relief and the same cannot be granted under Articles 226 and 227 of the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:617 WP No. 200750 of 2017
Constitution of India. Therefore, I decline to exercise power under Writ jurisdiction.
Sd/JUDGE
MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an injunctive relief prohibiting demolition can be granted under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in the absence of concrete evidence and conversion of agricultural land.
Whether the petitioner has established title and a threat of encroachment justifying writ jurisdiction for seeking an injunction.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Kamalabai W/o Salabayya Hiremath
The State of Karnataka
The Deputy Commissioner
The Commissioner, City Municipal Corporation
Jyoti Mulimani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
