Disposed¶41

S Mohamed Adil v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Jun 2025WP/22100/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compensation for demolition of residential house - writ petition under Articles 226 and 227, Constitution of India - mandamus for monetary compensation - held premature - no prior claim to respondent-Government - right not established - action in furtherance of notice dated 16.06.2020 (Annexure-J) - Tahsildar Yelahanka, Bangalore North Taluk - State of Karnataka, Department of Revenue - liberty to approach competent authority - WP No. 22100 of 2023 (KLR-RES) - decided 02.06.2025.

What did the court decide?

No compensation granted; writ petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to approach the competent authority for redressal of their grievance in a manner known to law. ¶41

S Mohamed Adil Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:18521 WP No. 22100 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.22100 OF 2023 (KLR-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

S. MOHAMED ADIL

¶10

S/O SRI. MOHAMED SYEED, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO. 489, HEGDE NAGAR, MAIN ROAD, S.R.K NAGAR POST, BENGALURU -560077.

¶11

RIYAZ AHMED

¶12

S/O ABDUL MAJEED, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT D.J HALLI, SAYED HUSSAIN LINE, KHAJA BLOCK, BENGALURU -560045.

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. PATIL SANGANAGOUDA GURANAGOUDA, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶18

THE TAHSILDAR YELAHANKA,

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:18521 WP No. 22100 of 2023

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 064.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA )

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO GRANT COMPENSATION FOR A SUM OF RS.10,00,000/- (TEN LAKHS) TO EACH OF THE PETITIONERS FOR DEMOLISHING THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE OF THE PETITIONERS IN SCHEDULE PROPERTIES.

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondents.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶30

In this writ petition, the petitioners have sought for following relief/s.

¶31

i. Issue writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant compensation for a sum of

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:18521 WP No. 22100 of 2023

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten Lakhs) to each of the petitioners for demolishing the residential house of the petitioners in schedule properties.

¶35

ii. Issue any other writ order or direction which deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

¶36

It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, the building in question belonged to the petitioners has been demolished by the respondents illegally, and therefore, compensation of Rs.10 lakhs has been sought for each of the petitioners on account of illegal demolition of the residential house by the respondents.

¶37

Per contra , learned Additional Government

¶38

Advocate appearing for the respondent-State submitted that, the disputed question of facts are involved in this writ petition and further, he submits that, the writ of mandamus would not lie without there being a legal right claimed by the petitioners against respondent-State. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶39

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:18521 WP No. 22100 of 2023

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Having taken note of submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the relief sought for by the petitioners is with regard to grant of compensation of Rs.10 lakhs in respect of demolishing residential house belonging to the petitioners as alleged in the writ petition by the petitioners. Therefore, as the petitioners herein have not approached the respondentGovernment claiming compensation and nor establish right insofar as action taken by the respondent No.2, in furtherance of the notice dated 16.06.2020 (Annexure-J), I am of the opinion that, the writ petition is premature and same cannot be accepted. However, it is open for the petitioners to approach the competent authority for redressal of their grievance in a manner known to law. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of .

¶42

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶43

SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38

S Mohamed Adil v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S Mohamed Adil v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shantaveerappa Vs Town Municipal Council

Rajanna Vs Town Municipal Council

Sri Mallappa Vs the Authorized Officer

D Narendranath Singh Vs the State of Karnataka

Nyanamurthy Achari Vs the Tahshildar

Smt Avvamma Vs the State of Karnataka