Allowed

Al Ameen Medical College and Hospital v. State of Karnataka and Ors.

Karnataka HC12 Dec 2024WP/200943/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka entertained a writ petition challenging a survey notice. Upon the petitioner submitting a survey report and sketch obtained during the pendency of the petition, the Court allowed the challenge and quashed the notice, permitting the petitioner to approach the authorities for a final resolution.

What did the court decide?

The impugned Notice dated 11.03.2024 by Respondent No. 4 is quashed. Petitioner granted liberty to submit fresh representation within four weeks.

Al Ameen Medical College and Hospital Vs State of… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

��

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶4

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 200943 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

AL AMEEN MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL OWNED AND MANAGED BY THE AL-AMEEN CHARITABLE FUND TRUST, ATHANI ROAD, VIJAYAPURA-586108, REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEE/TREASURER, SAYEEDA HINA AHMED D/O ZIAULLA SHARIFF SAHEB, AGED 55 YEARS,

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. R.S. KADAGANCHI, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶15

Digitally signed by LUCYGRACE Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, 3^RD FLOOR, BENGALURU-560 001. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶17

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NATIONAL HIGHWAY DIVISION, VIJAYAPURA-586 101.

¶18

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS CITY SURVEY, VIJAYAPURA-586 101.

¶19

TALUK SURVEYOR CITY DURVEY,

¶20

VIJAYAPUR 586 101.

¶21

¶22

��

¶23

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER VIJAYAPURA 586 101.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SMT. MAYA.T.R, HCGP FOR R-1, R-3 & R-4 & R-5 SRI. SANTOSH KUMAR MARADI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTICE NO. NIL DATED 11.03.2024 RECEIVED ON 12.03.2024 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 4 VIDE ANNEXURE K AND ETC.

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)

¶31

In this petition, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:-

¶32

“i. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ or order or direction, quashing the impugned notice No. Nil dated: 11.03.2024 received on 12.03.2024 issued by the respondent No.4 vide Annexure-k; and

¶33

ii. Issue in the nature of mandamus or any other writ or order or direction, directing the respondents to conduct survey of the entire extent of the land holding of the petitioner institution so as to determine the alleged encroachment, in terms of the directions issued by this Hon’ble Court in WA.No.200109/2023 vide final order dated: 07.02.2024 at Annexure-H; and

¶34

3 - ��

¶35

iii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ or order or direction, directing the respondents to not to demolish compound wall of the petitioner institution abutting the national highway, without following due process of law; and

¶36

iv. Issue any other writ order or direction; as this Hon’ble court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo on 27.08.2024 in the present petition along with copy of the survey map, report etc., The said Memo reads as under:-

¶38

“ The petitioner herein produced the copy of the PT sheet to show the position of Sy.No.33/F along with google map. In the google map, it clearly shows that the construction of staff quarters made by the Petitioner in the land in Sy.no.33/F and 33/N for king consideration of this Hon’ble Court”.

¶39

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in the

¶40

first instance, petitioner contended that despite the specific directions issued by the Hon’ble Division Bench in final order dated 07.02.2024 in W.A.No.200109/2023, the respondents had issued the impugned survey notice only in respect of Sy.Nos.39, 40 and 41 by excluding the remaining survey numbers of lands belonging to the petitioner. However, during the pendency of the present

¶41

��

¶42

¶43

petition, survey in respect of other lands of the petitioner was conducted on 06.07.2024 and the report, sketch etc., have been produced by the petitioner along with memo dated 27.08.2024 as stated supra. Under these circumstances, it is needless to state that in the light of conducting of the survey in respect of the lands of the petitioner which are indicated in the impugned Notice at Annexure-K dated 11.03.2024, the impugned Notice at Annexure-K deserves to be quashed and present petition deserves to be disposed of reserving liberty to take recourse to such remedies as available in law and by permitting the petitioner to submit a fresh representation ventilating its grievances by placing reliance upon survey sketch, report etc., conducted during the pendency of the present petition.

¶44

In the result, I pass the following:-

¶45

ORDER

¶46

(i) Petition is hereby allowed.

¶47

(ii) The impugned Notice at Annexure-K dated 11.03.2024 issued by the 4^th respondent is hereby quashed in view of the report dated 06.07.2024 produced along with the aforesaid memo dated 27.08.2024 submitted by the petitioner.

¶48

��

¶49

¶50

(iii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit fresh representation along with relevant documents including latest survey report, sketch etc., within a period of four weeks from today.

¶51

(iv) In the event, the petitioner submits such a representation along with relevant documents, the concerned respondents shall address the grievance of the petitioner and take necessary steps / action, pursuant thereto, in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of submission of the said representation

¶52

by the petitioner.

¶53

(v) Liberty is also reserved in favour of the petitioner to take recourse to such remedies as available in law.

¶54

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶55

Srl. List No.: 3 Sl No.: 10.1

Al Ameen Medical College and Hospital v. State of Karnataka and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Al Ameen Medical College and Hospital v. State of Karnataka and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neellamma Vs the District Commissioner and Ors.

Siddawwa and Ors. Vs State of Karnataka and Ors.

Vishwanath Reddy and Anr. Vs the State and Ors.

Aswath @ Aswathram Vs the Deputy Superintendent of Police and Anr.

Sri Nanagouda Biradar Vs the State of Karnataka and Anr.

Ayaz Khadri and Anr. Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.