Disposed

Sri B a Prakasha v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Sept 2024WP/24727/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought protection of possession over his property against threatened demolition for road widening. The court held forcible dispossession without acquisition proceedings violates Article 300A and directed respondents not to dispossess him except through due process of law.

What did the court decide?

Respondents restrained from dispossessing petitioner from schedule property except by due process of law; liberty reserved to acquire the property if road widening is intended.

Sri B a Prakasha Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:36895 WP No. 24727 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 24727 OF 2024 (LB-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI B A PRAKASHA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O B K APPANNA RESIDING AT 1479 DAVANAGERE ROAD THUMATI LAYOUT JAGALURU DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577528

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR P V., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by R DEEPA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001

¶13

REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE DISTRICT DAVANAGERE-577001

¶15

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE SUB DIVISION DAVANAGERE-577001

¶16

THE TASHILDHAR JAGALURU TALUK

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:36895 WP No. 24727 of 2024

¶18

JAGALURU

¶19

DAVANAGERE DISRICT-577528

¶20

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT JAGALURU SUB DIVISION JAGALURU

¶21

DAVANAGERE DISRICT-577528

¶22

THE TOWN PANCHAYATH JAGALURU, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577528 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. H.K. KENCHEGOWDA, AGA FOR R1 TO R5 V/O DATED 09.09.2024 NOTICE TO R6 IS D/W)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING FOR A ORDER / DIRECTION RESTRAINING THE RESPONDENTS FROM INTERFERING WITH THE PETITIONER 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 AND ETC.

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

The petitioner filed this writ petition stating that the petitioner is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property. The respondents under the guise of so called widening of the

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:36895 WP No. 24727 of 2024

¶31

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 petitioner over the petition schedule property. The action of the respondents is in violation of the Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Hence, the petitioner aggrieved with the high handed and arbitrary action, filed this writ petition.

¶32

Heard Sri. Chandrashekar P.V., the learned

¶33

counsel for the petitioner and Sri.H.K.Kenchegowda, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 5.

¶34

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

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:36895 WP No. 24727 of 2024

¶36

4. Per contra, learned Additional Government

¶37

Advocate submits that the respondents will evict the petitioner by due process of law. Hence, prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶38

Perused the records and considered the

¶39

submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶40

The petitioner is claiming to be the owner and in possession of the petition schedule property and the respondents without initiating any acquisition proceedings, are dispossessing the petitioner forcibly from the petition schedule property. The action of the respondents in dispossessing the petitioner 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 petitioner by due process of law i.e., initiate acquisition proceedings. Without due process of law, the respondents have no right to dispossess the petitioner from the petition schedule property.

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:36895 WP No. 24727 of 2024

¶43

In view of the above discussion, I proceed to

¶44

pass the following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶47

If the respondents intend to widen the road, liberty is reserved to the respondents to acquire the property of the petitioner.

¶48

Meanwhile, the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioner from the petition schedule property without due process of law.

¶49

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶50

SKS

Sri B a Prakasha v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri B a Prakasha 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

Mr. Hanumegowda Vs Sri Doddegowda

Sri. M. B. Shiva Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Adarsh Enterprises Vs the Commissioner

Sri M Sridhar Vs the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Smt. Rupa Sunder Raj Urs Vs M/S Manasa Properties

Mallesha Vs State of Karnataka