Allowed

Smt Rathanamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Jun 2024WP/20423/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition filed by property owners in Doddaballapura seeking directions not to demolish their premises for road widening. The court held that the petitioners were similarly placed to those in connected matters and directed the respondents not to demolish properties without following the mandatory statutory procedures.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed not to demolish the petitioners' properties without issuing notice and complying with the statutory provisions and earlier court directions.

Smt Rathanamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:21049 WP No. 20423 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 20423 OF 2017 (LB-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT RATHANAMMA S/O LATE NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.264, MARUTHINAGAR NEXT TO GEETHA MANDIR D CROSS ROAD, DODDABALLAPURA-561203.

¶8

SMT. NARASAMMA W/O CHIKKARANAGAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NO.3011-88, MARUTHINAGAR OPP: TO H.P.PETROL BUNK D CROSS MAIN ROAD DODDABALLAPURA-561203.

¶9

SRI.K.V. GURURAJ Digitally signed by S/O LATE K.N.VADIRAJARAO HEMALATHA A AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS Location: HIGH R/AT TRIDHAMA NILAYA, MARUTHINAGAR COURT OF OPP: TO H.P.PETROL BUNK KARNATAKA D CROSS MAIN ROAD, DODDABALLAPURA-561203.

¶10

SRI.D.G. VENKATARAMANAPPA S/O LATE DODDAGOPALAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/AT NO.237/1, MARUTHINAGAR OPP: TO H.P.PETROL BUNK D CROSS MAIN ROAD DODDABALLAPURA-561203.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:21049 WP No. 20423 of 2017

¶13

(BY SRI. R RAGHAVENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. T SESHAGIRI RAO.,ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIKAS SOUDHA, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001.

¶16

THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL DODDABALLAPURA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT MR.MUDDAPPA DODDABALLAPURA CITY DODDABALLAPURA-561203

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SMT. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R1., SRI. K.N. SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RSPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED:24.4.2017 FOUND AT ANNEXURE-F TO F3, CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NOT TO VIOLATE THE DIRECTION ISSUED IN W.P.NO.2038220391/2011 DATED:14.6.2011 FOUND AT ANNEXURE-E AND TO RESTRAIN THE RESPONDENTS FROM DEMOLISHING THE PROPERTIES OF THE PETITIONER WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:21049 WP No. 20423 of 2017

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:

¶24

“(a) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 24.04.2017 found at Annexures F to F3 consequently direct the respondent not to violate the direction issued in W.P.Nos.20382-20391/2011, dated 14.06.2011 found at Annexure-E.

¶25

(b) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus thereby restraining the respondents from demolishing the properties without due process of law.”

¶26

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that they are the owners of the petition schedule properties.

¶27

On 23.05.2011, the respondent issued a public notice, stating that the second respondent would initiate steps to demolish the petitioners’ premises for the purpose of widening of the Kongadiappa Main road, Market road,

¶28

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:21049 WP No. 20423 of 2017

¶29

Aa.Na.Krishnarao road and D Cross road. To that effect,

¶30

they have passed the resolution. Being aggrieved by the same, some of the landowners have approached this Court in W.P.Nos.20382/2011 to 20391/2011. This Court, disposed of the said writ petitions on 14.06.2011, with certain directions. Now, contrary to the directions issued by this Court, the second respondent, once again, trying to demolish the property of the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶31

This Court, in W.P.Nos.20382/2011 to 20391/2011 in respect of some of the landowners, disposed of the said writ petitions on 14.06.2011, in terms of W.P.Nos.1104 to 1110 of 2005 & connected matters, disposed of on

¶32

5.4.2005, with the following observations:

¶33

“(1) Writ petitions are allowed.

¶34

(2) Respondents are hereby directed not to demolish the residential, commercial establishments, shops or other buildings of

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:21049 WP No. 20423 of 2017

¶36

these petitioners and persons who are similarly placed which are situated on either side of Indira Gandhi road, Mahatma Gandhi road and Market road in Chikkamagalur Town.

¶37

(3) Liberty is reserved to the respondents to initiate appropriate action against the petitioners and others in accordance with the provisions of Sections 175, 179 and 187 of the Act.

¶38

(4) In the event the respondents intend acquiring the land belonging to these petitioners or others for widening the road, in order to bring it in conformity with the width of the road as mentioned in the CDP they shall issue notice to the petitioners and purchase/acquire the land, belonging to them and only on such acquisition they shall widen the road.

¶39

(5) If the respondents are intending to demolish the projections and buildings beyond the regular line of the public street the same shall be done after complying with

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:21049 WP No. 20423 of 2017

¶41

the mandatory requirements of Sections 179 and 181.

¶42

(6) If the respondents intend demolishing any constructions on the ground that the constructions are wholly unauthorised or the constructions are contrary to the sanctioned plan and license or contrary to the Act, Rules framed therein, a notice to be issued under Section 187 in which they shall clearly specify the ground on which they intend taking action to enable the owners of the land/property to offer their explanation.

¶43

(7) As is clear from the statutory provisions, the owners of the land be given a reasonable time, the minimum time being three days. Having regard to the fact that these petitioners and others who are similarly placed are owning these properties for decades, in the circumstances of these cases it is reasonable to expect the respondents to grant thirty days time before they take any punitive action by way of demolition after passing of a final order so that if the petitioners are aggrieved they

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:21049 WP No. 20423 of 2017

¶46

can agitate against those orders in an appropriate forum.

¶47

(8) Notice issued under Section 187 by the respondents are hereby quashed reserving liberty to issue fresh notice as stated above.

¶48

(9) In case the petitioners and others who are similarly placed complain that already portion of the buildings have been demolished, liberty is reserved to those petitioners to approach competent Civil Court claiming damages on proof of the demolition being conducted by the respondents in the light of the fact that the respondents stoutly deny any such demolition.

¶49

(10) In the demolished portion as contended by the petitioners and others who are similarly placed if any further action is taken by way of laying drainage, laying pipes, the same shall be done only after notice to the petitioners and compliance of the above directions.”

¶50

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:21049 WP No. 20423 of 2017

¶51

Since the petitioners herein are also similarly placed as that of the petitioners in the earlier writ petitions, the point in issue in this writ petition is squarely covered by the aforesaid decisions. Therefore, this writ petition is also allowed in similar terms.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

¶54

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47

Smt Rathanamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Rathanamma 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

Smt S Padvathamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri T v Sreenivas Vs the Executive Officer

Smt Anni Saldanha Vs the Additional Commissioner East

Sri Madhukar Vs the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Yeshodamma Vs the Commissioner

Smt. S Vasundara Vs Rudresh