Disposed

Dr M S Praveen Hegde v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Jul 2024WP/3233/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner alleged respondents demolished part of his commercial property to widen the Old P.B. Road without due process, seeking compensation. The court directed a survey; if land was taken, acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Act with compensation, rent and damages, within six months.

What did the court decide?

Survey by respondents 1-5 after notifying petitioner; if land used for widening, initiate acquisition under RFCTLARR Act 2013 and determine compensation, rent, damages and loss, within six months.

Dr M S Praveen Hegde Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:28883 WP No. 3233 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 3233 OF 2015 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

DR. M.S. PRAVEEN HEGDE S/O LATE DR. M.V. SRIKANTA HEGDE, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.563, OPP. SJVP COLLEGE OLD P.B. ROAD, HARIHARA CITY, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577601.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. S.V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-01. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (C & B) K.R. CIRCLE, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-01.

¶13

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SHIMOGA CIRCLE, SHIMOGA-577 201.

¶14

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:28883 WP No. 3233 of 2015

¶16

DAVANAGERE DIVISION, DAVANAGERE-577 001.

¶17

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT HARIHARA DIVISION, HARIHARA-577601.

¶18

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DAVANAGERE-577 601.

¶19

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

¶20

THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL HARIHARA, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, HARIHARA CITY-577 601 DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1 TO R7; SRI. B.K. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-8)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE ACTION OF THE RESPONDENTS IN DEMOLISHING THE PORTION OF THE BUILDING EXIST ON THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY TO THIS WRIT PETITION WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE PROCEDURES ESTABLISHED BY LAW AS ONE WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:28883 WP No. 3233 of 2015

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR)

¶30

Petitioner claims to be the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the commercial property bearing Katha 328/318/323 situated at Old P.B. Road, Harihara City (Birur-Sammasigi State Highway No.76) Davanagere City, measuring 75' x 60' feet consisting of three floors more fully described in the schedule.

¶31

The petitioner's grievance is that the portion of the property has been demolished and the same is utilized for widening of the Old Puna-Bangalore Highway. Hence, this writ petition is filed seeking for a direction to declare that the action of the respondents in demolishing the portion of the building is without following due process of law is in violation of Article 300A of the Constitution of India and also for a direction to the respondents to pay suitable compensation to the petitioners.

¶32

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondents without following due process of law has demolished the portion of the property belonging to the petitioners and the same is utilized for the purpose of widening of the old P.B. road which is in violation of Article 300A of the Constitution of India and the petitioner is entitled for suitable compensation determined under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:28883 WP No. 3233 of 2015

¶35

The learned counsel further submits that in Identical circumstances, this Court in W.P.No.47843/2014 disposed of on 7.9.2015 has directed the respondent-State and its Authorities to pay compensation for having utilised the property belonging to the petitioner therein for the purpose of widening of the Old PunaBangalore Road.

¶36

On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the allegation of the petitioner that a portion of the property is utilized for widening of the old P.B. Road without following due process of law is to be ascertained after conducting survey and in the absence of survey, the relief sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition cannot be granted. Only if it is found that, the petitioner property has been utilised for the purpose of widening the old P.B. Road, the respondent-Authority will take appropriate action to pay suitable compensation to the petitioner.

¶37

The arguments of learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered.

¶38

Grievance of the petitioner is that the portion of the property belonging to them has been utilized for the purpose of widening Old P.B. Road without following due process of law. However, an extent of the property belonging to the petitioner which is utilized for the purpose of widening of the said road has to be ascertained only after conducting survey by the Officers concerned of the Public Works Department and upon conducting survey by the Officers concerned, if it is ascertained that the property belonging to the petitioner has been utilized for the purpose of widening of the

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:28883 WP No. 3233 of 2015

¶41

Old P.B.Road, the petitioner is entitled for compensation in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act , 2013.

¶42

Therefore, it is expedient to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents No.1 to 5 to conduct survey of the subject property after notifying the petitioner and after conducting the survey, if it is found that the portion of the property belonging to the petitioner has been utilized for the purpose of widening of Old P.B. Road, the respondents No.1 to 5 are directed to initiate proceeding for acquisition of the subject property under The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and determine not only compensation but also rent, damages and other such compensatory reliefs including the loss caused to the petitioner.

¶43

The said exercise shall be concluded within the period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶44

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶45

Dr M S Praveen Hegde v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr M S Praveen Hegde v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank Vs Assistant Commissioner of Police

Smt Raginiyamma Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. K Udyashankara Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Yashodamma Vs the Principal Secretary

Rekha M R Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri B Y Srinivas Vs the City Muncipal Council