Dismissed¶120

Shri Pakkirgouda Patil v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Mar 2025WP/19463/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC Division Bench (NC: 2025:KHC:12687-DB), 17-03-2025: PIL dismissed on delay and laches and disputed questions of fact; demolition sought of Davanagere building (Assessment No.350/1-23) alleged to violate sanctioned plan and encroach Pune-Bangalore (PB) Highway Road; locus standi of public interest litigant; filing after completion of construction; Article 226; road widening and RFCTLARR Act 2013 compensation; Trishul Comforts Lodge; K.B. Rudrappa and Company; DDA v. Rajendra Singh (2009) 8 SCC 582; R and M Trust v. Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group (2005) 3 SCC 91.

What did the court decide?

Delay is an important consideration in entertaining a public interest petition; an indolent person cannot be said to have locus standi nor to be a public spirited person. ¶107

Shri Pakkirgouda Patil Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶120

Issue for consideration

Whether the building bearing Assessment No.350/1-23 (old Assessment No.115/16-17) of respondent No.9 was constructed in violation of the sanctioned building plan and encroached upon the Pune-Bangalore Highway Road at Davanagere, warranting demolition, disciplinary action against officials, and costs. +2 more

¶53

Court's answer

On the material noticed, the legality of the building was never in question and it stood the test of every consideration; this observation supports, but is not the stated ground of, the dismissal.

¶106

Ratio / Principle

Delay is an important consideration in entertaining a public interest petition; an indolent person cannot be said to have locus standi nor to be a public spirited person.

¶107

Key takeaways

Applying the delay principle: there is a delay of 36 years since the ground floor was constructed and 22 years since the third floor was permitted; hence the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches only.ratio¶113
The allegations of the petitioners and the denials by the respondents raise disputed questions of fact which, together with the operative facts, do not persuade the court to grant any relief to the petitioner.ratio¶119
The present public interest petition is meritless and stands dismissed accordingly.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Nine residents of Davanagere filed a PIL under Article 226 (WP No.19463 of 2021, GM-RES-PIL) seeking demolition of the building Assessment No.350/1-23 (old Assessment No.115/16-17), CTS No.122, Ward No.11, K.B. Badavane, old PB Road, belonging to respondent No.9, M/s. K.B. Rudrappa and Company (running 'Trishul Comforts Lodge'), alleging construction in violation of the sanctioned plan and encroachment on the Pune-Bangalore Highway Road, and further seeking disciplinary action against erring officials and costs on respondent No.9. Dismissing the petition, the Court held: (i) delay and laches are fatal — the ground floor was constructed under a 1985 sanction and the third floor was constructed in 1999, giving delays of 36 and 22 years respectively, and 'an indolent person cannot be said to have a locus standi nor can be said to be a public spirited person', relying on Delhi Development Authority vs. Rajendra Singh, (2009) 8 SCC 582, and R and M Trust vs. Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group, (2005) 3 SCC 91; (ii) the allegations and denials raise disputed questions of fact which do not persuade the Court to grant relief. Oral judgment delivered by Chief Justice N.V. Anjaria, with Justice M.I. Arun on the Division Bench.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:12687-DB WP No. 19463 of 2021

¶3

1IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. N.V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I. ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 19463 OF 2021 (GM-RES-PIL)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SHRI PAKKIRGOUDA PATIL S/O SHIVANAGOUDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS BYARASIDDESHWARA NILAYA NO.2009/216, 7^TH MAIN, 17^TH CROSS RANGANATH BADAVANE VIDYA NAGAR DAVANGERE - 577 005

¶11

Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

SHRI B. SIDDAPPA S/O. LATE BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 4^TH CROSS, 4^TH MAIN KAVERAMMA SCHOOL BACK SIDE K.B. EXTENSION DAVANGERE - 577 002

¶13

SHRI G.R. MALLESH S/O RUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS NO.1273/33, 7^TH CROSS TARALABALU BADAVANE VIDYA NAGAR DAVANGERE - 577 002

¶14

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12687-DB WP No. 19463 of 2021

¶15

SHRI S. RAVINDRA S/O SANJIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS NO. 949, 5^TH CROSS KTJ NAGAR DAVANAGERE - 577 002

¶16

SHRI B. VIRUPAKSHI S/O. BASAVANTAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS NEW CHIKKANAHALLI AVAREGERE (POST) WARD NO.30 DAVANGERE - 577 030

¶17

SHRI G.S. PARAMESHWARAPPA S/O SHADAKAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS AVAREGERE DAVANGERE - 577 030

¶18

SHRI N. RAGHU S/O NAGARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS TODADA CHIKKANAHALLI WARD NO.30 DAVANGERE - 577 002

¶19

SHRI O.N. BASAVARAJ S/O ONKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS AVARAGERE, WARD NO. 30 DAVANGERE - 577 030

¶20

SHRI M.R. SIDDESH S/O REVANASIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS

¶21

¶22

NC: 2025:KHC:12687-DB WP No. 19463 of 2021

CHIKKANAHALLI

DAVANGERE - 577 002

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)

¶27

AND:

¶28

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVENMENT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING

¶29

BANGALORE - 560 001

¶30

THE CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (C AND B) K R CIRCLE, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE - 560 001

¶31

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SHIMOGA CIRCLE SHIMOGA - 577 701

¶32

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DAVANGERE DIVISION DAVANGER - 577 001

¶33

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DAVANGERE SUB-DIVISION DAVANGERE - 577 001

¶34

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANGERE DISTRICT DAVANGERE - 577 001

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12687-DB WP No. 19463 of 2021

¶36

DAVANGERE CITY MUNCIPAL CORPORATION DAVANGERE - 577 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶37

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DAVANGERE SUB-DIVISION DAVANGERE - 577 001

¶38

M/S. K.B. RUDRAPPA AND COMPANY A REGISTRIED PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE AND BUSINESS AT NO.115/6-22 K B EXTENSION DAVANGERE - 577 001 REP BY ITS PARTNER K R SHIVAKUMAR S/O LATE K B RUDRAPPA R/O H.NO.1990 PURANTAR HOSPITAL ROAD M C C -A- BLOCK DAVANGERE - 577 004

¶39

THE SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001 (AMENDED V/O DT. 11.04.2023)

¶40

NATIONAL HIGHWAYS DIVISION AUTHORIY OF INDIA REP. BY OFFICE ASSISTANT, ENGINEER DAVANGERE OFFICE HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT FW7G+GJ, K. B. EXTETION DAVAGERE -57701 (AMENDED V/O DT. 11.04.2023)

¶41

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:12687-DB WP No. 19463 of 2021

¶43

NATIONAL HIGHWAY DIVISION PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (PWD) STATE OF KARNATAKA K.R. CIRCLE DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001 (AMENDED V/O DT. 11.04.2023)

¶44

…RESPONDENTS

¶45

(BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R-1, 6, 8, 10 AND 11; SRI B.M. AKSHAY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI B.K. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-7; SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI. S.V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R-9)

¶46

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO DEMOLISH THE BUILDING BEARING ASSESSMENT NO.350/1-23 (OLD ASSESSMENT NO.115/16-17) AS FAR AS IT IS IN VIOLATION OF THE BUILDING PLAN AND ENCROACHES UPON THE PUNE-BANGALORE HIGHWAY ROAD WITHIN THE LIMITS OF DAVANAGERE CITY AND ETC.,

¶47

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

¶48

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12687-DB WP No. 19463 of 2021

¶49

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶50

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶51

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

¶52

Nine petitioners, claiming themselves to be public-spirited persons and seeking to espouse the cause of the residents of Davanagere City to further claim that they want to ensure proper road access, have filed the present public interest petition.

¶53

The prayer made in the petition is to direct the respondentauthorities to demolish the building bearing Assessment No.350/1-23 (old Assessment No.115/16-17), alleging that it is constructed in violation of the building plan and further that it encroaches upon the Pune-Bangalore Highway Road within the limits of Davanagere City.

¶54

2.1 Another direction is prayed for against respondent Nos.1 and 6 to initiate disciplinary action against the erring officials in not taking action for demolishing the building. The third limb of the

¶55

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12687-DB WP No. 19463 of 2021

¶56

prayer is to direct the respondents to expeditiously complete the road widening work by demolishing the building. It is finally prayed to impose heavy costs upon respondent No.9 who constructed the building.

¶57

It is the case that respondent No.9-M/s. K.B. Rudrappa and Company is the owner of the property bearing Assessment No.350/1-23 (old Assessment No.115/16-17), CTS No.122, Ward No.11 (old Ward No.5) admeasuring 150x50+67.6/2 consisting of ground floor and three floors. The building is situated at K.B. Badavane, old PB Road. It is further stated that respondent No.9, which is a partnership firm, has been running a hotel business in the name and style of "Trishul Comforts Lodge".

¶58

3.1 The petitioners' case is that the construction ought to have been put up by maintaining particular distance from the centre of the road and that, an area of 72 feet has to be reserved for road and thereafter the building could have been constructed. It is alleged that the building has been constructed in violation. It is next stated that respondent No.9 had filed Writ Petition No.41856 of 2014 and prayed for direction to prohibit the authorities from

¶59

¶60

NC: 2025:KHC:12687-DB WP No. 19463 of 2021

¶61

demolishing the building without acquiring the property and paying compensation.

¶62

3.2 In that proceedings, it was alleged, there was suppression of material fact that the building was constructed in violation of the approved plan and by encroaching upon the government land. It was stated that this court directed the respondent-authorities not to demolish the building as per the order dated 03.09.2014. It was stated that thereafter the authorities have not taken any steps to get the stay order vacated nor any application is filed before the court that the building has been constructed in breach of the construction regulations and amounted to encroachment on government land.

¶63

3.3 It appears that previously a Writ Petition No.41856 of 2014 was filed seeking prohibition against the respondent-authorities from demolishing the building. It was further stated that due to the stay order passed in aforementioned Writ Petition No.41856 of 2014, the proposal by the government to put up water pipes to facilitate supply of water to the residents of Davanagere district was stopped.

¶64

¶65

NC: 2025:KHC:12687-DB WP No. 19463 of 2021

¶66

3.4 The petitioners have referred to several communications

¶67

addressed by them to different authorities requesting the authorities to take action against respondent No.9 for its illegal construction. The residents submitted a representation requesting the respondent-Corporation to remove the illegal construction put up by respondent No.9 and thereby enable them to make facilities for water, however, no heed was paid to.

¶68

3.5 It is the further case that the respondent-authorities have been acting in a biased manner and they have been not alive to the need for removal of the encroachment. It was alleged that respondent No.9 is high-handed person and continued with the illegal construction. Various grounds are raised in the memorandum of petition supporting the prayer to demolish the said building put up by respondent No.9.

¶69

3.6 In other words, the petition is filed seeking demolition of the building on the ground that respondent No.9 has constructed the same without sanctioned plan and in violation of the sanction plan.

¶70

3.7 The respondents filed their statement of objections and contested the petition.

¶71

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:12687-DB WP No. 19463 of 2021

¶72

Heard learned advocate Mr. Shivaprasad Shantanagoudar for the petitioners, learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Niloufer Akbar for respondent Nos.1, 6, 8, 10 and 11, learned advocate Mr. B.M. Akshay for learned Mr. B.K. Manjunath for respondent No.7 and learned Senior Advocate Mr. Udaya Holla with learned advocate Mr. S.V. Prakash for respondent No.9, at length.

¶73

4.1 It was submitted that the petition is a motivated and mala fide petition and that it is filed at the behest of Mr. Virupakshappa who has a running dispute with the partners of respondent No.9 in respect of the encroachment made by him on the property.

¶74

Following factual aspects were highlighted, (a) The building was constructed by respondent No.9 way back in the year 1986 after obtaining sanctioned plan from the Urban Development Authority. (b) On 20.08.1997, the National Highway Authority had given no objection to respondent No.9 for construction of the building over the existing building. (c) The building in question has been constructed after obtaining licences, building plans and it has

¶75

been assessed to tax by the City Municipal Council without any demur. (d) The Commercial Tax Department, Government of

¶76

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:12687-DB WP No. 19463 of 2021

¶77

Karnataka was a tenant of the first, second and third floors of the building in question from the year 1999. (e) The National Highway Authorities have not raised any objection with regard to the building of respondent No.9.

¶78

5.1 The below mentioned details run material,

¶79

(i) Respondent No.9 obtained sanctioned plan on 02.12.1985 from the Davanagere Harihara Urban Development Authority for construction of a shopping complex on the ground floor. After the ground floor was constructed, the local body assessed the same for property tax without any objection.

¶80

(ii) On 20.08.1997, the Assistant Executive Engineer, gave no objection to respondent No.9-owner for construction of building over the existing building.

¶81

(iii) Thereafter, on 29.08.1992, respondent No.9 obtained building plan and building licence from the Davanagere Urban Development Authority for construction of first and second floors on the existing building.

¶82

(iv) The first and second floors were constructed. The said floors in the shopping complex were assessed for property tax by

¶83

12 -

¶84

NC: 2025:KHC:12687-DB WP No. 19463 of 2021

¶85

the local body and that the property tax is being collected since then.

¶86

(v) On 08.01.1998, building plan and building licence for construction of third floor in the shopping complex of the property was allowed by the authorities to respondent No.9-owner. The same was granted by the local body-Davanagere Urban Development Authority.

¶87

(vi) The plan was countersigned by the officials of the Municipal Council. Accordingly, third floor was also constructed. The authorities assessed the entire building for property tax.

¶88

(vii) The first, second and third floors of the building are with the Commercial Tax Department, Government of Karnataka, given on lease basis and the Commercial Tax Department is in occupation as tenant. The occupation has been since fifteen long years.

¶89

(viii) After the third floor was constructed as above, the City Municipal Council issued a special notice to revise the property tax in respect of the building comprising of ground floor as well as all the three floors. In that notice also, it is communicated by the City

¶90

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:12687-DB WP No. 19463 of 2021

¶91

Municipal Council that the first, second and third floors of the building are in occupation of the Commercial Tax Department.

¶92

(ix) The first, second and third floors of the shopping complex constructed by respondent No.9 were let out to the Department of Commercial Tax for its office. As per the Rules, before occupying the building, Public Works Department was contacted to assess fixation of rent as well as fitness of the building.

¶93

(x) The road in front of the building of the petitioners was originally a National Highway, which has now ceased to be a National Highway and has become a State Highway. Therefore, there is no need for widening the road.

¶94

5.2 The other developments relating to the subject building are relevant to be noticed. One of the partners of respondent No.9 was aggrieved with the special notice about property tax and therefore had filed Writ Petition No.9001 of 2001. This Court granted liberty to respondent No.9 to file objections to the said special notice and directed the authorities to consider the objections of respondent No.9 to the revised assessment of tax and pass appropriate orders, accordingly disposing of the petition on 27.11.2002. There was a

¶95

14 -

¶96

NC: 2025:KHC:12687-DB WP No. 19463 of 2021

¶97

further Writ Petition No. 810 of 2004. The said writ petition came to be allowed by this court and the Municipal Authorities were directed to consider the objections and pass appropriate orders.

¶98

5.3 The Public Works Department, Government of Karnataka, along with Davanagere District Administration took a decision on 20.08.2014 to widen the P.B.Road in Davanagere City up to the width of 60 feet on both sides from the centerline of the road. In this regard, notice was issued to various officials as well as the owners of the building situated on P.B. Road calling for a meeting. In the meeting, the authorities sought cooperation of the building owners to permit them to widen the road and the owners in turn requested that they may be paid compensation as provided under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

¶99

5.3.1 Number of writ petitions came to be filed on 10.02.2020 including Writ Petition No.2920 of 2020 challenging the proposal of the respondents to widen the road without following the due process of law and without payment of just compensation. This court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to follow due process of law before utilizing the land

¶100

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:12687-DB WP No. 19463 of 2021

¶101

for forming the road and till the process is completed, not to interfere with the rights of the property owner.

¶102

5.3.2 In the above writ petition, allegation has been made by the petitioners that the building in question has encroached upon Poona Bangalore Highway Road and that the road width is 150 feet. Under the circumstances, the petitioners applied and obtained P.T. Sheet from the City Survey Department, Government of Karnataka, who have categorically stated that the road width of PB Road is 24.69 M or 81 feet. The photographs of the building and the PB Road are produced along with the statement of objections of respondent No.9 to the ADLR's spot inspection.

¶103

5.3.3 The photographs depicted that the building in question is in line with all the other buildings on the road and therefore, the allegation that there has been encroachment into the road is, on the face of it, wholly false. Certain disputes have arisen between the partners of respondent No.9 and Mr. Virupakshappa who has engineered the present writ petition. The appeals filed in this regard are produced at Annexures-R25 to R27.

¶104

5.4 All the above facts, attendant aspects and considerations go to suggest that the building was subjected to several factual

¶105

16 - NC: 2025:KHC:12687-DB WP No. 19463 of 2021

¶106

situations and events but its legality was never in question. It stood test of every consideration.

¶107

5.5. In entertaining the public interest petition, delay is an important consideration. An indolent person cannot be said to have a locus standi nor can be said to be a public spirited person.

¶108

5.5.1 In Delhi Development Authority vs. Rajendra Singh and

¶109

others [(2009) 8 SCC 582] , the Supreme Court took the view that Rules of Delay would apply to the public interest litigations and if proper explanation is not furnished to the delay, the public interest petition is liable to be dismissed summarily on that count only.

¶110

5.5.2 At the same time, the stage of filing of petition is also relevant. In R and M Trust vs. Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group and others [(2005) 3 SCC 91] which was the case regarding to allotment of plots, the Supreme Court observed that when a petition is filed in relation to the construction of building, after the completion of construction, such delay would become fatal.

¶111

5.6 In the present case, what the petitioner wants is to demolish the building which was constructed as back as thirty years. The first

¶112

17 - NC: 2025:KHC:12687-DB WP No. 19463 of 2021

¶113

floor was constructed in 1985. The second floor was constructed in 1982 and the third floor of the building was constructed in 1999. The construction of all the floors was after obtaining necessary plan and sanction plan from the competent authority. There is delay of 36 years in filing the petition after the ground floor was constructed and 22 years since the third floor was permitted to be constructed. Therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches only.

¶114

5.7 Three floors were allowed to be constructed and 35 years have passed without any complaint regarding the violation of construction. The building is put up in accordance with the licenced sanction plan and the rules of construction. It is to be noted that the Commercial Taxes Department is a tenant in the first, second and third floors of the building. Again showing that the building is lawfully constructed. The building is assessed for municipal tax and no objection regarding the illegal construction has been raised. Now it is sought to be put forward that the building is not having sanctioned plan or that there is a violation. The commencement certificate is already granted in the year 1882.

¶115

18 -

¶116

NC: 2025:KHC:12687-DB WP No. 19463 of 2021

¶117

5.8 Further more, there are number of buildings on the very road.

¶118

There have been no objection in respect of other buildings either by the petitioners or by the municipal corporations. The record of the petition includes the copy of the approved sanctioned plan. Also figures on record, commencement certificate dated 21.09.1992 given by the Davanagere Urban Development Authority.

¶119

While the above position is obtained from the record, in any view of the matter, the allegations of the petitioner and denial thereof by the respondents raise disputed questions of fact. The said aspect as well as the operative facts do not persuade the court to grant any relief to the petitioner.

¶120

The present public interest petition is meritless and it stands accordingly dismissed.

¶121

Sd/(N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶122

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶123

BKV

¶124

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

Shri Pakkirgouda Patil v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Pakkirgouda Patil v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Canara Bank Vs Sri M.H. Ron

Smt. Munithayamma Vs Rajeev

Lababeen Sunnath Jamath Mosque Vs Karnataka State Board of Auqaf

K.C.Medappa Vs Venkataraju

M/S Dilip Buildcon Limited, Vs the State of Karnataka

Shani Theresa Wallis Vs Mr. Jain Avneesh (Alias Avneesh Jain)