Allowed

Anandaraju N v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Apr 2024WP/449/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged CHESCOM notices demanding a PWD no objection certificate and threatening electricity disconnection over alleged unauthorized construction on State Highway 154. The court held adjudication of unauthorized construction belongs to the PWD, found the disconnection notices without authority of law, quashed them and barred coercive action without due process.

What did the court decide?

Notices dated 26.12.2019 (Annexures F and F1) quashed; respondent No.3 barred from taking coercive steps regarding the alleged unauthorized construction without due process of law.

Anandaraju N Vs the State of Karnataka — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:15599 WP No. 449 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 449 OF 2020 (GM-KEB)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

ANANDARAJU N S/O NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.19, PUMP HOUSE, HOSAHALLI VILLAGE, BELAGOLA HOBLI-571438, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571438.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA PRASAD T.V., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-01.

¶13

THE TAHSILDAR SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 438.

¶14

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARMENT SRIRANGAPATNA SUB-DIVISION-6 MANDYA DISTRICT-571 438.

¶15

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (E) OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE SUB DIVISION, CHESCOM, SRIRANGAPATNA, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 438.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:15599 WP No. 449 of 2020

¶19

(BY SRI. S.R. KHAMROZ KHAN, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI H.V. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO PROHIBITING THE R-4 FROM DISCONNECTING ELECTRICITY TO THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY AS PER CONTENTS OF NOTICE DATED 26.12.2019 AT ANNEXURE-F AND NOTICE DATED 26.12.2019 AT ANNEXURE-F1; PROHIBITING THE RESPONDENTS FROM DEMOLISHING THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY OR DISPOSSESS THE PETITIONER FROM HIS PROPERTY WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND WITHOUT ACQUISITION AND PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The notices issued by the respondent No.4, calling upon the petitioner to furnish no objection certificate from Public Works Department (PWD) for continuing the power supply to the petitioner's property is challenged in this petition.

¶24

In the impugned notices, it is indicated that, on the instructions of Upalokyukta, the Public Works Department have taken steps to remove the unauthorized construction in Madras - Kannur State Highway 154, and based on the same, the respondent No.4 has intended to disconnect power supply to the petitioner's premises.

¶25

Whether the petitioner has put up unauthorized construction on the property is a matter which is to be adjudicated by the Public Works Department, and if any unauthorized construction is put up, it is for the said department to take appropriate action to remove the unauthorized construction. Therefore, the impugned notices issued by

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:15599 WP No. 449 of 2020

¶28

the respondents on the premise that steps are taken to disconnect the power supply to the petitioner's premises is one without authority of law.

¶29

Accordingly, the petition is allowed.

¶30

The impugned notices dated 26.12.2019 at Annexures-F

¶31

and F1 are hereby quashed.

¶32

The respondent No.3 is hereby directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner from removing the alleged unauthorized construction without following due process of law.

¶33

Sd/JUDGE

¶34

Anandaraju N v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anandaraju N 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

M/S S.A. Rawther Spices (P) Ltd., Vs the Director

Jagannath Rao K R Vs Agricultural Produce Market Committee

K Sundara Bangera Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Excise

Sri Venkatesh B S Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Neelavathi. M Vs Bengaluru Electricity Supply Company Limited

Sri Siddesh Kumar R Vs Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited