Futermal S/O Babulal Jain Vs the Commissioner

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 04.08.2017 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONERS AS PER ANNEXURE-D AND NOT TO DEMOLISH THE PETITION PREMISES WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND ETC.

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

¶22

2 -

¶23

NC: 2026:KHC-D:198 WP No. 108719 of 2017

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioners have approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus against the respondent/Corporation in relation to the proposed road widening at Bhendi Bazar, Belagavi. Apprehending demolition of their premises bearing CTS Nos. 3280/1 and 3280/2 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘scheduled property’) without due process of law, this Court, by order dated 21.09.2017, directed the respondent/Corporation not to demolish the scheduled property until further orders.

¶27

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Corporation.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioners brings to the notice of this Court that, in respect of the same road widening project at Bhendi Bazar, Belagavi, similarly placed persons had approached this Court in W.P.No.108718/2017 in the case of Prabhakar S/o

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC-D:198 WP No. 108719 of 2017

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Krishnaji Bongale vs. The Commissioner, Corporation

¶33

of City of Belagavi, wherein, the respondent/Corporation had categorically stated that there was no proposal as of then to widen the road by utilizing the property of the petitioner therein and that if any such proposal were to arise, the same would be implemented only after due acquisition in accordance with law. In the case of Prabhakar (supra), it is observed as under:

¶34

“2. Sri. Bhushan B. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation submits that there is no proposal as of now to widen the road by making use of the property of the petitioner. His further submission is that, in the event of there being any, the said widening would be carried out after due acquisition in accordance with law.

¶35

The said submission answers the grievance of the petitioner.”

¶36

The learned counsel appearing for the

¶37

respondent-Corporation reiterates the same position in the present case.

¶38

In view of the categorical submission made on behalf of the respondent/Corporation that there is no

¶39

4 -

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC-D:198 WP No. 108719 of 2017

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

present proposal as of now to widen the road by making use of the petitioner property and that, any future road widening would be undertaken only after due acquisition in accordance with law, the grievance of the petitioner stands adequately addressed, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶43

It is made clear that in the event of any proposed road widening or demolition affecting the petitioner's property, the respondent/Corporation shall strictly adhere to the procedure prescribed for acquisition

¶44

and would carryout the widening in accordance with law.

¶45

Sd/JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

¶46

AM/Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27

Futermal S/O Babulal Jain v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Futermal S/O Babulal Jain v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr N Maruti Rao Vs the Rani Channamma University

Siddalingappa S/O Late Hampanna Kalagatti Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Sri Jagadguru Sanganabasava Swamiji Vs the Tahasildar

Shri. Abhay Krishnarao Yalagi Vs the Commissioner

Chaitra Shambanna Vaddar Vs the State of Karnataka

Meghal D/O Jyotin Gandhi Vs Deputy Commissioner