Disposed

Sri. G. Basavaraj @ G. Siddabasappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Sept 2024WP/25145/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought restraining order against State authorities demolishing property. Court observed dispossession without acquisition violates Article 300A. Disposed petition reserving liberty to acquire property via proper law if road widening intended.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed. Liberty reserved to acquire property. Respondents directed not to dispossess without due process.

Sri. G. Basavaraj @ G. Siddabasappa Vs the State of… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:38494 WP No. 25145 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 25145 OF 2024 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. G. BASAVARAJ @ G. SIDDABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O LATE G SIDDALINGAPPA, RESIDING AT NO. 2402/1 1^ST FLOOR, 10^TH MAIN CROSS, MCC A BLOCK, NEAR BAKKESHWARA HIGH SCHOOL DAVANAGERE SOUTHERN EXTENSION - DVG DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577004

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR P V., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by R DEEPA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

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

¶14

REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DAVANAGERE - 577001.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE SUB-DIVISION DAVANAGERE - 577001.

¶17

THE TAHSILDAR JAGALURU TALUK

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:38494 WP No. 25145 of 2024

¶19

JAGALURU

¶20

DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577528.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SMT. SPOORTHI V., HCGP FOR R1 TO R5; V/O DATED 18.09.2024, NOTICE TO R6 D/W)

¶25

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

¶30

petitioner is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property. The

¶31

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:38494 WP No. 25145 of 2024

¶32

respondents under the guise of so-called widening of the 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

¶33

of the Constitution of India. Hence, the petitioner aggrieved with the highhanded and arbitrary action of the respondents, filed this writ petition.

¶34

Heard Sri. Chandrashekar P.V., the learned

¶35

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

¶36

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.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:38494 WP No. 25145 of 2024

¶39

Per contra, learned HCGP submits that the

¶40

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

¶41

Perused the records and considered the

¶42

submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶43

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.

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:38494 WP No. 25145 of 2024

¶46

In view of the above discussion, I proceed to

¶47

pass the following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶50

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

¶51

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

¶52

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶53

SSB

Sri. G. Basavaraj @ G. Siddabasappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. G. Basavaraj @ G. Siddabasappa 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 Raghunath N R Vs the State of Karnataka

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

Sri Ramesh Reddy Vs Sri Thippareddy

M/S Esphita Builders Vs the Commissioner

Sri Lokaya Vs State of Karnataka

G M Somashekar Vs Malenadu Areca Traders Company Private Ltd.