Karnataka High Court
Smt Naseer Begum Since Deceased By Her ... vs The D C Of Bidar on 21 April, 2009
Bench: Anand Byrareddy, A.N.Venugopala Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIE BENCH AT GU
LBARGA
DATED THIS THE 2V
' DAY OF APRIL 2009
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JU
STICE ANAND BYRARE
DDY
AND
THE HON I3LE MR. JU
STICE AN. VENUGOPA
LA GOWDA
c±cwo.p7LQQsc
1
c
!v!L
IN
Wfl!O39*2Q
JB
BETWEEN.
SMT NASRER SEGUM
SINCE DECEASED BY
HE R LRS
j H A KUALEEL, S/0 LATE
MA SUKUR LASKERY
AGED 40 YEARS, 0CC
PRIVATE WORK,
b) MOHAMMED SHAK
EEL
5/0 LATE MASUKUR
LASKERY,
AGED 25 YEARS, 0CC:
UNEMPLOYED,
2 SMT BISMII LA BEGUM
SUBHADRA
W/O LATE MOHAMMED
ABDUL SUKUR LASKAR
AGED 57 YEARS, 0CC: I
HOUSEHOLD,
3 SM'f SYEEDA BANU
W/0 MOHAMMED AB
DUL SURHAN LASKARI.
AGED 52 YEARS, OC
HOUSEHOLD WORK,
4 SMT KHALEDA BEGU
S/C ABDULJALEE
L LASKARI
AGED 43 YEARS, 0CC
HOUSEHOLD WORK,
5 SMTNAP1SABEGUM
W/O MOHAMMED AB
DUL SALAM LASKARI
AGED 45 YEARS, OCC;
HOUSEHOLD WORK
13
)
SMTSARDARBEGUM
W/ 3 MOHAMMED ABDI
JL HAFEEZ LASKARI,
AGED 50 YEARS, 0CC.
HOUSEHOLD WORK,
ALL R/AT N )ORKHAN
AKAHDA HUMNABAD
DISTRICT HIDAR THRO
UGH THEIR GPA
HOLDER, MOHAMMED
ABDUL SUBHAN,
5/0 SIIAIK MAHABOOB
LASKARI
AGED o2 YEARS, 0CC
PENSIONER
N/U NOOR KHAN
AKHADA, HUMNABAO
DISTRICT BIDAR iPt AUtfl
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKA
4 PETITIONEP
R P PATIL, ADVOCATE
I
AND
I SRI HARSH&GUI'PA,
AGE: MAJOR, THE DEPU
TY COMMISSIONER
BIDAR DISTRICT
CF
BIDAR U ((
4fPETF3NtYEN
(B SriS S KUMMAN,
AGA) 3 lIc
G
THIS CCC FILED U/S
I 1&12 OF I HE COPIrEM
PRAYING TO INITIAT VT OF COUST ACT
E CON7EMPT PROCEE
RESPONDENT DINGS AGAINST TH
I ACCUSED FOR DISOBEYING ORDER
IN WKNO 394612
E
008 DT D 1 L3 20 0S
THIS APPEAL COMING ON
BYRAREDDY, JMAD FOR T
HEA
N G R ON THIS DAY, ANAN
ETHE FOlLOWING D
ORDER
The present complaint is filed on the footin g that the complainants' art the ow ners of the house prop eit at Amhedkar Chowk of Humanabad It is alleged that the re spondent had initiated coercive steps for demolition of structu res without due process of law and that had been challenged by the complainants 1S 3 in a writ petition No394 6/ 2008 and this Cour t disposed of the writ petition by an order da ted 11 03.2008. The operative portion of the order reads as follo ws:
'4. II is profitable to refe r to Section 81(2) Kaniataka Municipalities (1) of the Act, 1964, which state s that all public streets and the pavement, stones and other materiaLs thereof an d also erections, materials, implements and thin p provided for such str eets, are vested in the Municipa lity, if it is the ea se of the respondents that the pe titioners have encroach ed on the stree4 the respondent s have not only the ng hl but also the duty to free the sam e from encroachment However, if the properties in question ar e not on the street and they are not arnipulso if rily aapnred by the resp ondents for their puipose and if they are not purchased by them frj holding privat e negotiations. the resp ondents shall not demolish the shop units in question or di spossess the petitioners from the said shop units'
2 It is the further ease of the complainants th at m spite of the above order, the respondent has pr oceeded to carry out demolition without co mpliance with the spec ific direction issued by this Court. Notice having been or dered of the complaint , the respondent has entere d appearance and ha s filed statement of 4 objections to state that in ord er to clear encroachments on the road from Amhedkar Ch owk to Basaveshwara Cbowk of Humanabad, which is ab out half (1/2) a kilometer and where people had uniformly en croached the mad by co nstruction of houses and shops over the decades and in outer to cle ar the said encroachments in the intere st of the public for their pe rsonal and vehicular movement, a coordination meeting was called on 2502.2008 in the presen ce of the Chief Officer of the Town Municipality Town Planning Anthority and the owners of the property whose properties are situated on the said roa d. The persons gathered at the me eting had voluntarily ex pressed and consented to remove the encroachments so as to enable the authorities to widen the existing road, which is ab out 60 fret The proceedings were drawn up accordingly and signatur es of all concerned were obtained.
However, the complainants were not present and did not take ste ps to have the encroachmen t removed, though every other persons who either owned shops or houses on the said road bad volunt arily come forward to remove the encroachments, 5
3. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the respondent had instructed the Chief Officer to issue notice to the complainants in accordance with lais and accordmglv, a notice dated 11 O42OO8 had been iss ued irifonning the com plainants that they had unauthorizedly constnicted the build ing and there is ncioac hinent on the ma d and called upon the complainants to produce documents if any to establish their tit le to the property. Howevei, the notice wa s refused. This compell ed the respondent to affix the notice on the property On his part, the complainant has failed to produce any documents in respe ct of the propert and in the absence )f ii hich, demolition has be en carried out to clear the encroachment, However; by the time demolition has been carried out, it is sta ted that the complaina nts had voluntarily xi moved all the articles from the shop s which comprises the cncioa bed portion, and has alieadv removed the steel shutters of the premises 4 II is further stated th at the complainant ha s now approached the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Dw rsion) Humanabad in a civil suit in OS. No .104/2008 seeking the relief of declaration of the onlcr passed by the Chief Officer and ha s further sought for 6 initiating the acquisition proceedings and the sam e is pendmg adjudication It is stated by the respond ent that they have not violated the condition im posed m the outer of this Court as stated in paragrapb-4 of the ord er, which is extnrcted herei n above
3. In this background, the insistence of the counsel for the. 'omplainants that he would file a rejoinder to the statement of objections notwithstanding the fact that a civil suit has already been instituted in respect of the alleged action of the respondent, even then the responden t has to be bronght to book for having violated the outer of the court and therefore, see king time, to enable the complamauts who claim to be abroad to instruct the counsel to file a rejoinde r whkh is proposed, is no t tenable 4 Having regant to the abov e facts and circumstance s, as contended by the parti es, there are questions of fact ihich have to be enqmrcd int o It is more appropriate that the same which are the subject matter of a civil su it, which the nmpiainants b'ive alrea dy instituted, the comp lainants have recourse to the said proce edings and would effectiv ely enable them to seek appropriate relief s therein including such action against 7 the respondent as would be warranted in law, if such ac tion is established to he ill egal. Hence, the allegatio n as to violation of the order of this C ourt giving rise to several questions of fact which requires to be adju dicated more appr opriately, in the pe nding civil suit and consequent ly, the complaint is liable to he closed .
Accordingly, the co mplaint is closed.
The prayer for tilin rejoinder is reject g a ed. However, it is made clear that any observations made in this order wou ld not prejudice either the complainant or th e respondent in th e pending civil suit safr JUDGE sat VRL