Sri.Nasarulla Sharief Vs Tumakuru Mahanagara Palike

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18/02/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT, IN WP No.35809/2024 AND BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION No.35809/2024.

¶22

THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)

¶26

In the writ petition, the appellant-petitioner had called in question the intimation letter dated 30.11.2024, wherein it was stated to the petitioner that he had encroached upon the conservancy and the road and that, he was required to remove the encroachment. Learned Single Judge allowed the petition directing respondent No.1-Tumakuru Mahanagara Palike to remove the encroachment within two months.

¶27

It is against the aforesaid order that the present writ appeal is filed.

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13542-DB WA No. 381 of 2025

¶29

While directing the Tumakuru Mahanagara Palike to remove the encroachment, learned Single Judge, in terms, recorded a finding that there was an encroachment. This finding was based on the status report obtained by the Tumakuru Mahanagara Palike which was directed to instruct the Engineers to conduct inspection and file report to the court. The report was filed and the encroachment was indicated. Photographs were also produced which were appreciated by learned Single Judge.

¶30

It was recorded by learned Single Judge that pursuant to the order passed by the court, the Assistant Executive Engineer had visited the spot and conducted the spot inspection. It was stated that the Assistant Executive Engineer was present before the court to produce the sketch prepared relating to the site, in which the portions of encroachment by the petitioner as well as respondent No.3 were clearly indicated.

¶31

The encroachment is a matter of fact. A finding of fact has

¶32

been recorded by learned Single Judge that there was an encroachment done by the petitioner for the conservancy and

¶33

the road which was based on the report of the Assistant Executive Engineer who had inspected the spot and also

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13542-DB WA No. 381 of 2025

¶35

produced photographs along with the sketch. The encroachment was established. In that view, the direction was issued to the Tumakuru Mahanagara Palike to remove the same.

¶36