Disposed

Sri Anandaram G H v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Aug 2024WP/32582/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged MUDA notices alleging encroachment and demanding removal of constructions and vacation. The Court did not decide the dispute; it gave petitioners two weeks to reply to the show-cause notices, directed MUDA to consider the replies in accordance with law within six weeks, and restrained MUDA from precipitating matters meanwhile.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri Anandaram G H Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:31429 WP No. 32582 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 32582 OF 2016 (LA-UDA)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. ANANDARAM G.H., AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS S/O LATE G.G. HANUMANTHAIAH, NO.56, 9^TH MAIN, VINAYAKA NAGARA, MYSORE-570 012

¶8

SMT. S C ASHWATHA LAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS W/O LATE K.R. GUNDAPPA #4/A, VINOBHA 'D' ROAD VIJAYASHREEPURA, MYSORE-570 006

¶9

SINCE DEAD BY HER LR'S

¶10

Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

2(A). SRI. GUHA G.V.K., AGED MAJOR S/O. LATE. K.R. GUNDAPPA R/AT: NO.101 COMFORT SAI NIVAS KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE-20

¶12

SMT. BABY BAI AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS W/ LATE M.S. RAMA RAO NO.9, VINOBHA 'D' ROAD, 5^TH CROSS, VIJAYASHREEPURA, MYSORE-570 006.

¶13

SMT. P N GAYATHRI AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:31429 WP No. 32582 of 2016

¶16

W/O KRISHNAMURTHY #11/1, VINOBHA 'D' ROAD, 5^TH CROSS, VIJAYASHREEPURA, MYSORE-570 006.

¶17

SMT. B S HEMA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS W/O B.N. SRISHAKUMAR #7-2270/A, VINOBHA 'D' ROAD, 5^TH CROSS, VIJAYASHREEPURA, MYSORE-570 006.

¶18

SMT. M JAYALAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS W/O MANJUNATH #6, VINOBHA 'D' ROAD, 5^TH CROSS, VIJAYASHREEPURA, MYSORE-570 006.

¶19

SRI. MALLESH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS S/O KENDAGANNA SWAMY #17, VINOBHA 'D' ROAD, 5^TH CROSS, VIJAYASHREEPURA, MYSORE-570 006.

¶20

SMT. NAGAMMA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS W/O VENKATARAMAIAH #9, VINOBHA 'D' ROAD, 5TH CROSS VIJAYASHREEPURA, MYSORE-570 006

¶21

SINCE DEAD BY HER LR'S

¶22

8(A). SMT. MANJULA H.N W/O LATE SATHYANARAYANA H.V AND DAUGHTER IN LAW OF LATE.NAGAMMA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:31429 WP No. 32582 of 2016

¶24

8(B). MS. VANAJAKSHI S D/O. LATE SATHYANARAYANA H.V. AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS

¶25

8(C). MS. RAMYA S D/O. LATE SATHYANARAYANA H.V AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT:#09, VIJAYASHREEPURA, MANASA GANGOTHRI, MYSORE-570 006.

¶26

SMT. PUTTAMMA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS #16, VINOBHA 'D' ROAD, 5TH CROSS VIJAYASHREEPURA, MYSORE-570 006.

¶27

SINCE DEAD BY HER LR'S

¶28

9(A). SRI. D. VIJAYENDRA SWAMY S/O. LATE. M. DEVAIAH AND LATE. PUTTAMMA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS

¶29

9(B). SRI. D. NAGENDRA SWAMY S/O. LATE PUTTAMMA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

¶30

9(C). SRI. D. MAHESH S/O. LATE PUTTAMMA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT: NO.16/1, 5^TH CROSS, 2^ND MAIN VIJAYASHREEPURA, MYSORE-570 006.

¶31

SMT. RAJALAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:31429 WP No. 32582 of 2016

¶33

W/O NARAYANA NAYAR #14, VINOBHA 'D' ROAD, 5^TH CROSS, VIJAYASHREEPURA, MYSORE-570 006.

¶34

SMT. RAMYA SUBBANNA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS D/O. SUBBANNA #10, VINOBHA 'D' ROAD, 5^TH CROSS, VIJAYASHREEPURA, MYSORE-570 006.

¶35

SRI. SOMANNA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS S/O. VEERATHAPPA #12, VINOBHA 'D' ROAD, 5TH CROSS VIJAYASHREEPURA, MYSORE-570 006

¶36

SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S

¶37

12(A). SMT. PRABHAVATHI W/O. LATE SOMMANNA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS

¶38

12(B). SRI. MAHADEVASWAMY S/O. LATE SOMMANNA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

¶39

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT: NO.13, VINOBHA 'D' ROAD, 5TH CROSS, VIJAYASHREEPURA, MYSORE-570 006.

¶40

SMT. V.G. VASANTHA KUMARI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS D/O. GURUMALLAPPA W/O. RAJASHEKARAPPA #15/1, GANAPATHI TEMPLE ROAD, VIJAYASHREEPURA MANSION HOUSE,

¶41

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:31429 WP No. 32582 of 2016

¶42

MANASAGANGOTRI, MYSORE-570 006.

¶43

…PETITIONERS

¶44

(BY SRI. N.N. DAMODAR., ADVOCATE)

¶45

AND:

¶46

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA, VIDHANA VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001 REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY.

¶47

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT SECRETARIAT, VIKASA SOUDHA, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶48

MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JANASIRANI LAKSHMIBAI ROAD, MYSORE CITY, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶49

…RESPONDENTS

¶50

(BY SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. H.C. SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶51

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICES DATED 30.05.2016 (ANNEXURE X1 TO X14) ISSUED BY THE R-3 I.E., THE MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ETC.

¶52

¶53

NC: 2024:KHC:31429 WP No. 32582 of 2016

¶54

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

¶55

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶56

ORAL ORDER

¶57

On the ground that the petitioners have illegally encroached upon the properties that have been acquired by respondent No.3, the impugned notices have been issued to the petitioners by the third respondent to remove the encroachment, illegal constructions and vacate the properties or show-cause why action should not be initiated against them. Against the said notices, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition, contending that they are the owners of the properties concerned, and they are in lawful possession of the same and prayed for setting-aside the impugned notices.

¶58

Learned counsel for respondent No.3, upon instructions submits, that what has been asked from the petitioners is to show-cause as to why the petitioners

¶59

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:31429 WP No. 32582 of 2016

¶60

should not be evicted from the properties in question and instead of replying to the said notices, the petitioners have approached this Court.

¶61

Under the said circumstances, this Court is of

¶62

the opinion, that it would be appropriate that if two weeks time is granted to the petitioners to show-cause as to why they should not be evicted from the properties in question and a further direction to respondent No.3 to consider the reply of the petitioners in accordance with law and pass

¶63

appropriate orders thereafter. Hence, the following:

¶64

ORDER

¶65

i. Petitioners are given liberty to submit a reply to the impugned notices issued by respondent No.3 - MUDA, within a period of two weeks from today.

¶66

ii. Respondent No.3 shall consider the reply of the petitioners in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders and initiate such proceedings in accordance with law, * within six weeks thereafter. Until a

¶67

*DELETED AND INSERTED VIDE CHAMBER ORDER DATED 14.08.2024.

¶68

¶69

NC: 2024:KHC:31429 WP No. 32582 of 2016

¶70

decision is taken on the reply of the petitioners, respondent No.3 shall not precipitate the matter against the petitioners herein.

¶71

iii. Further, if the petitioners fail to reply within two weeks from today to the show cause notice, respondent No.3-MUDA is at liberty to initiate appropriate action in accordance with law.

¶72

iv. It is needless to state that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the decision to be taken by respondent No.3, they are always at liberty to challenge the same in the manner known to law.

¶73

v. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶74

Sd/JUDGE

¶75

¶76

PAGE NO.8: RETYPED AND REPLACED VIDE CHAMBER ORDER DATED 14.08.2024.

Sri Anandaram G H v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri Anandaram G H v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandra Shekara Dikshith Vs S. Manjunathaiah

Smt. Mayamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr a Mohammed Siddiqh Vs the State of Karnataka

Kiran.G. Vs State of Karnataka

The Principal Vs Mrs Renuka Bai

Sri C Narayanaswamy Vs Sri Sridhar