Karnataka High Court
Deepak, vs State Of Karnataka, on 24 February, 2020
Author: S G Pandit
Bench: S.G. Pandit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24 T H DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT
WRIT PETI TION NO.104612/2016 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN
DEEPAK S/O K.GURURAJ ACHAR,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/A VIRUPAPUR GADDE,
GANGAVATHI TALUK,
KOPPAL DISTRICT
... PETITIONER
(BY SMT.V.VIDYA BRUNDA RAO, ADVOCATE
FOR SRI.K RAGHAVENDRA RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDINGS,
BENGALURU
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
KOPPAL DISTRICT
3. THE TAHSILDAR,
GANGAVATHI TALUK,
KOPPAL DISTRICT
4. GRAMPANCHAYAT ANEGUNDI,
BY ITS SECRETARY,
ANEGUNDI
2
5. HAMPI WORLD AREA MANAGEMENT
AUTHORITY, HAMPI,
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SHIVAPRABHU S HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1-R3,
SRI.PRASHANT F GOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4,
SRI.VEERESH R BUDIHAL, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONS TITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE
DATED:12.05.2016/04.06.2016 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.5
AT ANNEXURE-H AND ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION WITH
COSTS.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING B GROUP THIS DAY, TH E
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the notice bearing No.ºÀ « ¥À ¥ À æ ¤ ¥Áæ / ºÉ Æ /wp.103751/ 2015/2016-17/160 dated 12.05.2016/04.06.2016, Annexure-H.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Advocate and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5.
3
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner purchased the land bearing Sy.No.43/2/7 (old No.43/B) measuring 10 guntas situated at Virupapura Gaddi village under sale deed dated 11.05.2006. It is stated that the conversion with regard to land in question is pending before this Court in W.P.No.103620/2016. It is submitted that the petitioner is residing in house built in the said land and also running a restaurant. The petitioner has also put up small rooms for stay of the guests for eking out livelihood. The restaurant run by the petitioner is called as 'Laughing Budha Restaurant and Guest House'. Annexure-E notice dated 07.03.2015 was issued to the petitioner by the Tahasildar, to produce documents relating to the petitioners restaurant/resort. It is also stated in the notice that in the agricultural land unauthorizedly the 4 petitioner is running the resort. The petitioner challenged the said notice before this Court in W.P.No.103751/2015. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by its order dated 21.04.2016 giving four weeks' time to the petitioner to submit reply and this Court also observed not to demolish the structures on the land in question, except in accordance with law. The petitioner states that he submitted reply on 20 t h May, 2016. Thereafter the notice impugned herein dated 12.05.2016/04.06.2016 is issued by the respondent No.5-Authority. In the notice it is alleged that the petitioner's land falls within the respondent No.5-Authority and particularly, the Virupapura Gaddi village falls within the core area of the Authority. As the petitioner's land falls within the river buffer zone, no development activity is permitted. Therefore, the petitioner was asked to vacate the 5 guest house and restaurant run by the petitioner, failing which it was stated that action would be taken to evict from the restaurant and guest house. Challenging the said notice, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the notice is vague and it would not indicate the violations, if any, by the petitioner. The petitioner would not be in a position to reply to such a vague notice. Therefore, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent may be directed to issue proper notice and the petitioner would reply to the same.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.5 would submit that the impugned notice would clearly indicate the violations by the petitioner. As the petitioner's 6 land is within 100 meters of river buffer zone no developmental activities are permitted. Whereas, the petitioner is running guest house and restaurant in the said land. Therefore, there is clear violation. It is his submission that the petitioner be directed to furnish reply to the notice at Annexure-H and considering the reply, the respondent No.5 would pass appropriate orders. Further, he submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.1443-1456/2020 decided on 11.02.2020 has held that no developmental activity could be permitted in the Virupapura Gaddi village which falls within the core area of respondent No.5-Authority. Further, he submits that the petitioner has not obtained any license or permission from any of the Authorities to run the guest house or restaurant.
7
6. Admittedly, the petitioner is running 'Laughing Budha Restaurant and Guest House' as averred in the writ petition at para No.3. No document whatsoever to demonstrate the permission or license obtained for running such restaurant or guest house is placed on record. Annexure-H notice indicates that the petitioner's land falls within 100 meters buffer zone of the river, where no developmental activity could be permitted. It also indicates the violation of provisions of the Mysore Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1961, the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act (Amendment and Validation Act), 2010 and Hampi Master Plan 2021 and Hampi World Heritage Area Management Authority Act, 2002. The petitioner to reply to the said notice and on consideration of the reply submitted by the 8 petitioner, the respondent No.5-Authority to pass appropriate orders.
7. The petitioner is granted two weeks time from today to file objections. On receipt of objections from the petitioner, the respondent No.5 shall consider the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within two weeks thereafter. Till then, respondent No.5 shall not take any precipitative action.
8. With the above, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sh