Disposed

B Mallikarjuna v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Sept 2024WP/24961/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged forcible dispossession and demolition attempts by respondents for road widening without acquisition proceedings. The High Court directed respondents not to dispossess the petitioner without due process and reserved liberty to initiate acquisition proceedings if road widening is intended.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents not to dispossess petitioner without due process of law; liberty reserved to respondents to acquire property if intending to widen the road.

B Mallikarjuna Vs the State of Karnataka — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

- 1 - NC: 2024:KHC:38119 WP No. 24961 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 24961 OF 2024 (LB-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

B MALLIKARJUNA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O LATE BASAPPA, RESIDING AT 1086 TALUK OFFICE ROAD, MUSLIM COLONY JAGALURU, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577528 …PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR P V., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by R DEEPA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶12

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DAVANAGERE - 577 001.

¶13

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE SUB-DIVISION, DAVANAGERE - 577001.

¶14

THE TASHILDHAR JAGALURU TALUK JAGALURU, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577528

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:38119 WP No. 24961 of 2024

¶16

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, JAGALURU SUB DIVISION JAGALURU DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577528

¶17

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

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SMT. SPOORTHI V., HCGP FOR R1 TO R5 V/O DATED 12.09.2024 NOTICE TO R6 IS D/W)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING FOR A DIRECTION TO 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.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioner filed this writ petition stating that the

¶25

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

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:38119 WP No. 24961 of 2024

¶27

road, without following the due process of law, 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 highhanded and arbitrary action of the respondents, filed this writ petition.

¶28

Heard Sri. Chandrashekar P.V., the learned

¶29

counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Spoorthi V., learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 to 5.

¶30

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 the respondents may be directed to evict the petitioner by due process of law i.e., initiating land acquisition proceedings. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the writ petition.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:38119 WP No. 24961 of 2024

¶33

Per contra, learned HCGP submits that the

¶34

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

¶35

Perused the records and considered the

¶36

submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶37

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 are 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.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:38119 WP No. 24961 of 2024

¶40

In view of the above discussion, I proceed to

¶41

pass the following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶47

SKS

B Mallikarjuna v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B Mallikarjuna 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

Sri a M Suresh Babu Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Seenappa Vs Venkataramappa @ Venakaravanappa

Shivamallegowda Vs Mahadevegowda

Revanasiddappa. B. G. Vs the State of Karnataka

The Federal Bank Limited Vs Matchmove India Private Limited

Sri. B a Thippeswamy Vs the State of Karnataka