Disposed

Sri. M.K. Raju v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Sept 2024WP/21066/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Priyors filed a writ petition challenging the arbitrary dispossession of their property for road widening by respondents. The High Court directed respondents not to dispossess petitioners without following due process of law, specifically initiating acquisition proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed not to dispossess the petitioners from the schedule property without due process of law.

Sri. M.K. Raju Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:39193 WP No. 21066 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 21066 OF 2024 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. M.K. RAJU AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O LATE M S KALLESHAPPA

¶9

SMT GRIJAMMA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS W/O LATE M S KALLESHAPPA

¶10

SMT M K RASHMI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS D/O LATE M S KALLESHAPPA

¶11

Digitally signed by R DEEPA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI M K GIRISH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS D/O LATE M S KALLESHAPPA

¶13

ALL ARE R/AT "SRI KALLESHWAR NILAYA" M G BUS STAND, JAGALUR TOWN DAVANAGERE DISTRICT 577528

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR P V., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARMTENT VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE 560001

¶18

REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:39193 WP No. 21066 of 2024

¶20

THE DEPUTY COMMISISONER DAVANAGERE DISTRICT DAVANAGERE 577001

¶21

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE SUB DIVISION DAVANAGERE 577001

¶22

THE TASHILDHAR JAGALURU TALUK JAGALURU DAVANAGERE DISTRICT 577528

¶23

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT JAGALURU SUB DIVISION JAGALURU DAVANAGERE DISTRICT 577528

¶24

THE TOWN PANCHAYAT JAGALURU DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577528 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. B. BOPANNA, AGA FOR R1 TO R5 SRI. MAHESH UPPIN, ADVOCATE FOR R6)

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A DIRECTION RESTRAINING THE RESPONDENTS FROM INTERFERING WITH THE PETITIONERS PEACEFUL POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTIES IN ANY MANNER INCLUDING THE DEMOLISHING OF THE STRUCTURE / SHEDS STANDING IN THEREON OR UTILIZATION OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTIES, OTHER THAN THROUGH DUE PROCESS OF LAW; DIRECTION OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT DECLARING THAT, THE ACTION OF THE RESPONDENTS TO DEMOLISH / UTILIZATION OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTIES WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN ONE WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND ANY AUTHORITY OF LAW.

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:39193 WP No. 21066 of 2024

¶29

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

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

The petitioners filed this writ petition stating that the petitioners are the absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property. The respondents under the guise of so called widening of the Road without following the due process of law and arbitrarily attempted to demolish the existing structures and tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the petition schedule property. The action of the respondents is in violation of the Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Hence, the petitioners aggrieved with the high handed and arbitrary action, filed this writ petition.

¶33

2. Heard Sri. Chandrashekar P.V., the learned

¶34

counsel for the petitioners and Sri.H.K.Kenchegowda, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:39193 WP No. 21066 of 2024

¶37

Nos.1 to 5 and Sri. Mahesh R Uppin, learned counsel for respondent No.6.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents without due process of law are trying to dispossess the petitioners from the property in question. Hence, he submits that respondents may be directed to evict the petitioners by due process of law i.e., initiating land acquisition proceedings. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.

¶39

Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the respondents will evict the petitioners by due process of law. Hence, prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶40

Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶41

The petitioners are claiming to be the owners and in possession of the petition schedule property and the respondents without initiating any acquisition

¶42

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:39193 WP No. 21066 of 2024

¶43

proceedings, are dispossessing the petitioners forcibly from the petition schedule property. The action of the respondents in dispossessing the petitioners forcibly is contrary to Article 300A of the Constitution of India. If at all the respondents intending to widen the road, the respondents have to dispossess the petitioners by due

¶44

process of law i.e., initiate acquisition proceedings. Without due process of law, the respondents have no right to dispossess the petitioners from the petition schedule property.

¶45

In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶48

If the respondents intend to widen the

¶49

road, liberty is reserved to the respondents to

¶50

acquire the property of the petitioners.

¶51

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:39193 WP No. 21066 of 2024

¶52

Meanwhile, the respondents are directed

¶53

not to dispossess the petitioners from the

¶54

petition schedule property without due process

¶55

of law.

¶56

SD/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶57

SKS

Sri. M.K. Raju v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. M.K. Raju 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Shekar Vs the Commissioner

Sri Venkatesha T v Vs State of Karnataka

Smt.Kamalamma Vs Smt.Pushpavathi

M/S Slv Housing Development Corporation Vs Sri. Umapathy Srinivasa Gowda

Sri Althaf K Vs Grama Panchayath

Smt Shanth Gowri Vs Bbmp