Sri Tanveer Pasha Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO PAY THE COMPENSATION TOWARDS MAKING USE OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER FOR FORMATION OF THE CONNECTING ROAD, WITHOUT ACQUIRING THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, ILLEGALLY WITHIN A TIME FRAME AND ETC.,

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:46020 WP No. 2302 of 2022

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondent No.2 to pay the compensation towards using up the schedule property for formation of a connecting road.

¶25

(i) The petitioner claims that his grandfather had purchased a shop premises bearing CMC old Khatha No.1643/A and new Khatha No.1816/1967 measuring east to west 10 feet and north to south 12 feet situate at Santhepet, Tumakuru town in terms of a sale deed dated 30.01.1958. He executed a Will bequeathing the aforesaid property in favour of the father of the petitioner. The grandfather of the petitioner died on 22.07.1993 and hence his father became the full and absolute owner. The petitioner claims that the Khatha of the aforesaid property stood in the name of his father. He claims that the property is situated adjacent to Santhepete main road and that in the year 2009 at the instance of some vested interests, the said property was taken over in a high-handed manner without following the due process of law.

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:46020 WP No. 2302 of 2022

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

(ii) The father of the petitioner filed O.S.No.814/2009 for perpetual injunction. As no order of interim injunction was granted the authorities of respondent No.2 took over and formed a road on the property. The suit was thereafter withdrawn with a view to pursue other remedies for claiming compensation from the respondents. The father of the petitioner then approached respondent No.2 seeking compensation. The respondent No.2 in its meeting held on 16.05.2012 resolved to take suitable action in accordance with law to acquire the property in question. The father of the petitioner died on 28.10.2017, leaving behind the petitioner and his siblings and his mother. It is contended that notwithstanding the said resolution, no steps are taken by respondent No.2 to pay compensation. The petitioner is therefore before this Court seeking for the aforementioned reliefs.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated above contentions and contended that the property of the petitioner was indisputably used up for formation of a road and the respondent No.2 was bound to pay compensation.

¶30

4 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:46020 WP No. 2302 of 2022

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

The writ petition is opposed by respondent No.2 which has filed its statement of objections inter alia contending that the writ petition raises complex questions of fact and title and that unless there is an adjudication by the Civil Court the petitioner cannot pursue the remedies in this writ petition. Besides the above, it is contended that the other family members of the petitioner are not arrayed as parties to the writ petition. It is further contended that under Section 175 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, no acquisition or purchase of land by the Corporation can be undertaken without the prior approval of the State Government and therefore, even if a portion of private land is used, compensation proceedings can commence only after obtaining such statutory approval. It is also contended that the petitioner is bound to seek redressal of his grievance under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Resettlement Act, 2013. It is also claimed that the petition is filed after inordinate delay and hence the petitioner is not entitled to any equitable reliefs.

¶34

5 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:46020 WP No. 2302 of 2022

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

The fact that the grand father of the petitioner was the owner of the property described in the foregoing paragraph is established by the sale deed placed on record. The entries in the property tax register maintained by respondent No.2, as evidenced by Form No.3 issued by the erstwhile City Municipal Council, Tumakuru, support the claim that the name of father of the petitioner was duly entered in respect of the said property. The photographs produced along with the writ petition clearly demonstrate that the house constructed on the property was demolished and that the Santhepete Main road presently runs over it.

¶38

It is well settled that right to property is though no longer a fundamental right, is a constitutional right, and no person can be dispossessed without following the due process of law. The respondent No.2 having used up the property of the petitioner for formation of the road, is bound to determine and pay the compensation payable in that regard. The respondent No.2 having resolved in its meeting held on 16.05.2012, to take suitable action for acquisition of the property, cannot idle away and refuse compensation to the petitioner. On the

¶39

6 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:46020 WP No. 2302 of 2022

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

contrary, the respondent No.2 is under an obligation to take proactive measures to compensate the petitioner for the loss of his property.

¶43

In order to verify whether the property of the petitioner was used up for the formation of the road or not, this Court in terms of an order dated 07.12.2023 had ordered a survey of the property to identify the limits of the property of the petitioner. The surveyor has submitted a report stating that the property of the petitioner was used up for the purposes of forming the road to connect to Santhepet main road.

¶44

In that view of the matter, this petition is disposed

¶45

of directing respondent No.2 to take all necessary measures to determine and disburse the compensation to the petitioner in accordance with law, which at any rate shall be within a period

¶46

of 03 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶47

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶48

HJ

¶49

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50

Sri Tanveer Pasha v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Tanveer Pasha 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

Sri Rajashekar Vs the Commissioner

Sri. K. Keshava Acharya Vs the Commissioner

Smt. Gowramma W/O Late Venkatesh Vs Smt. Nagamma W/O Venkatesh

Smt Shashiyamma @ Shasikala Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. T. Venkataramu @ T. v. Ramu Vs Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Srinivas v Vs State of Karnataka