Disposed

B. C. Ramesha v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Sept 2024WP/25124/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed writ seeking remedy against arbitrary demolition of structures and interference with his possession. Court held respondents cannot dispossess without acquisition proceedings. Petitioner granted liberty to acquire property if road widening intended.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to acquire the property; meanwhile, respondents directed not to dispossess petitioner from the property without due process of law.

B. C. Ramesha Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:37919 WP No. 25124 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 25124 OF 2024 (LB-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

B. C. RAMESHA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O LATE CHANDRA REDDY, RESIDING AT CHALLAKERE ROAD BEHIND GOVT. HOSPITAL, JAGALURU, DAVENAGERI 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, BANGALORE 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DAVANAGERE 577 001.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DAVANAGERE SUB-DIVISION, DAVANAGERE 577 001.

¶15

THE TAHSHILDHAR JAGALURU TALUK, JAGALURU DAVANAGERE DISTRICT 577 528.

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:37919 WP No. 25124 of 2024

¶17

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, JAGALURU SUB DIVISON, JAGALURU DAVANAGERE DISTRICT 527 528.

¶18

THE TOWN PANCHAYAT, JAGALURU, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT 577528. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT. SPOORTHI.V., HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-5; VIDE ORDER DATED:17.09.2024, NOTICE TO R-6 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES PRAYING TO DIRECT 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, ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioner filed this writ petition stating that the

¶26

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

¶27

Road without following the due process of law and arbitrarily attempted to demolish the existing structures

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:37919 WP No. 25124 of 2024

¶29

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.

¶30

Heard Sri. Chandrashekar P.V., the learned

¶31

counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Spoorthi V., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 5.

¶32

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.

¶33

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the respondents will evict the

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:37919 WP No. 25124 of 2024

¶36

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

¶37

Perused the records and considered the

¶38

submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶39

The petitioner is claiming to be the owner and

¶40

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

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

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:37919 WP No. 25124 of 2024

¶44

ORDER

¶45

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶46

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

¶47

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

¶48

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶49

SKS

B. C. Ramesha v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. C. Ramesha 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

Vatchala P Vs the Chief Commissioner

K.M. Srinivas Vs Peddakka

Smt. N. v. Lakshmi Vs the State of Karnataka

Dy Maxa Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Karantaka

Sri Ramesh Reddy Vs Sri Thippareddy

M/S.B.Ganapathy Bhandarkar and Sons Vs Mangaluru Mahanagara Palike