Karnataka High Court
Sri Dr H S Chandrashekar vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 June, 2012
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
Bench: Ajit J Gunjal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT J GUNJAL
WRIT PETITION NOS.45015-45019 OF 2011
AND
45065-45069, 45070-45074, 45075-45079,
45080-45082 OF 2011 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1 SRI DR H S CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
S/O LATE SRI H S SHANTHAPPA
R/AT NO.204, HOSPET, T M ROAD
HULIYURDURGA, KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
2 SRI SHAIK NOORUDDIN
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
S/O LATE SRI BABU SAB
R/AT H.L.NO.312, HOSPET
T M ROAD, HULIYURDURGA
KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
3 SRI H H DEVARAJA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
S/O LATE H J HANUMANTHA SHETTY
R/AT NO.222/14, HOSPET
T M ROAD, HULIYURDURGA
KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
2
4 SRI K S RAGHAVENDRA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
S/O LATE K P SRINIVASA RAO
R/AT NO.76, HOSPET
T M ROAD, HULIYURDURGA
KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
5 THE PRESIDENT
BASAVESHWARA TEMPLE
H L NO.356, HOSPET
T M ROAD, HULIYURDURGA
KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMKUR DSITRICT.
6 SMT SHIVANANJAMMA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
W/O LATE H P PARAMESHAIAH
R/AT NO.340, HOSPET
T M ROAD, HULIYURDURGA
KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
7 SRI KALA SHETTY
S/O CHIKKANNA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT NO.38, HOSPET
T M ROAD, HULIYURDURGA
KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
8 SRI H N MANJUNATH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
S/O LATE H S NANJAPPA
R/AT NO.333, 331
HOSPET, T M ROAD
HULIYURDURGA
KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
3
9 S B LATHA W/O H N MANJUNATH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT NO.333, 331
HOSPET, T M ROAD
HULIYURDURGA
KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
10 SMT H T MANJULA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
W/O PARAMESHWARAIAH
R/AT NO.328 AND 329
HOSPET, T M ROAD
HULIYURDURGA
KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
11 SMT M S GANGAMMA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
W/O KALASHETTAPPA
R/AT NO.106/A, HOSPET
T M ROAD, HULIYURDURGA
KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
12 SRI H P UMESH
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
S/O SRI PUTTANNAIH
R/AT NO.125, HOSPET
T M ROAD, HULIYURDURGA
KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
13 SMT PREMAMMA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
W/O LATE H C GURUNANJAPPA
R/AT NO.1055, HOSPET
T M ROAD, HULIYURDURGA
KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
4
14 SRI NAZEEM S/O LATE AKBAR SAB
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/AT NO.359
HOSPET, T M ROAD
HULIYURDURGA
KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
15 SRI MOHMMAD HUSMAN
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
S/O HUSAIN SAB
R/AT NO.717, HOSPET
T M ROAD, HULIYURDURGA
KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
16 SRI RANGA SWAMY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
S/O LATE MAGANNA SHETTY
R/AT NO.228/1, HOSPET
T M ROAD, HULIYURDURGA
KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
17 SRI H B PRASAD
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
S/O LATE BASAPPA
R/AT NO.313, HOSPET
T M ROAD, HULIYURDURGA
KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
18 SRI H B UMESH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
S/O LATE BASAVARAJAPPA
R/AT NO.691/692,. HOSPET
T M ROAD, HULIYURDURGA
KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
5
19 SRI KARIYANNA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
S/O LATE HONNAIAH
R/AT NO.931, HALE PET
T M ROAD, HULIYURDURGA
KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.
20 SRI H N NANJAIAH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
S/O NANJAIAH
R/AT NO.932, HALE PET
HULIYURDURGA, KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
21 SMT H B SHIVAMMA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
W/O LATE H R SHIVANNA
R/AT NO.689/690, HALE PET
HULIYURDURGA, KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
22 SRI H S KRISHNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
S/O LATE SIDDALINGE GOWDA
R/AT NO.693, HALE PET
HULIYURDURGA, KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
23 SMT NINGAMMA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
W/O LATE RAMAIAH
R/AT NO.429, HALE PET
HULIYURDURGA, KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRCT. ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI: S N PRASHANTH CHANDRA,
ADVOCATE FOR LAW & OPTIONS)
6
AND:
1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE.
2 KARNATAKA STATE HIGHWAY
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
PWD ANNEX BUILDING
K R CIRCLE
BANGALORE - 560 001
BY ITS PROJECT DIRECTOR
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT.
3 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
TUMKUR DISTRICT
TUMKUR.
4 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
KUNIGAL SUB DIVISION
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
5 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
TUMKUR DIVISION, KUNIGAL ROAD
TUMKUR.
6 THE TAHSILDAR
KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
7 THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
HULIYUR DURGA, KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT: M C NAGASHREE, HCGP FOR
RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 6
RESPONDENT NO.7 - SERVED)
7
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA DIRECT
THE RESPONDENTS TO RESORT TO THE PROPOSED
WIDENING AND THE CONSEQUENT DEMOLITION OF the
IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES/RESIDENTIAL HOUSES ON THE
HULIYURDURGA MAIN ROAD BETWEEN SRI ANJANEYASWAMY
TEMPLE, HOSA PETE AND HULIYURAMMA TEMPLE, HALE
PETE, HULIYURDURGA TOWN, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR
DISTRICT, EXCEPT BY DUE PROCESS OF LAW INSOFAR AS
THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED AND DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS TO PROVIDE ALL NECESSARY INFORMATION
AS SOUGHT BY THE PETITIONERS VIDE THEIR LEGAL
NOTICE DATED 25.11.2011 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND
DESIST FROM TAKING ANY ACTION TO DEMOLISH OR
WIDEN THE HULIYURDURGA MAIN ROAD BETWEEN SRI
ANJANEYASWAMY TEMPLE, HOSA PETE AND HULIYURAMMA
TEMPLE, HALE PETE, HULIYURDURGA TOWN, KUNIGAL
TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
All the petitioners claim to be the permanent residents of Huliyurdurga Town, Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District. It is their case that they are having interest either as landlords or tenants carrying on their avocation in the said town. Along with the writ petition, the petitioners have made available the requisite Sale Deeds. 8
2. The State Highway No.33 runs from Malavalli Town, Mandya District up to Koratagere Taluk, Tumkur District. The said State Highway passes through the Huliyurdurga Town. The properties of the petitioners situate on either side of the State Highway.
3. The grievance of the petitioners is that for widening of the State Highway, the respondents have resorted to highhandedness and started demolishing their houses. The main grievance of the petitioners is that without having recourse to law and without acquiring the property, they could not be dispossessed for the purpose of widening of the road. Hence, these writ petitions are filed seeking a writ of mandamus to the respondents not to widen the road.
9
4. Smt.M.C.Nagashree, learned HCGP, submits that it is not a case where the petitioners have title to the property, but they have encroached the Government property. The statement of objections though do not disclose that, during the course of arguments, such a contention is raised. The main objection is that since the residents of the Town want widening of the road having regard to the traffic in flow, the respondents have resorted to the said action.
5. Identical questions fell for consideration before this Court in respect of Tumkur Town in W.P.No.1359/2009 and connected petitions disposed of on 21.1.2009 (SRI RAMALINGA SETTY V/S. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS). This Court in those cases has held that without putting the petitioners on notice, the properties belonging to them could not have 10 been made use of for the purpose of widening of the road. It was also observed that the concerned Municipal authorities are also required to take note whether there is any encroachment by the owners of the properties. Indeed, I am of the view that there is no reason as to why the said benefit cannot be extended to the petitioners in these writ petitions.
6. Following the reasoning stated therein, these writ petitions stand disposed of on the following directions:
i) The respondents shall not dispossess the petitioners in these writ petitions without the due process of law having regard to the provisions of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, Town and Country 11 Planning Act as well as National Highways Act, 1956.
ii) In respect of the encroachers, the respondents shall issue notice to them and call upon them to produce the necessary documents and on such documents being produced, it shall examine whether indeed they are encroachers or not.
iii) If the respondents comes to a conclusion that they are required to proceed under the provisions of the Act and take possession on the ground that they are encroachers, the said order shall not be given effect to for a period of two weeks. 12
7. Indeed, the relief sought for by the petitioners in these writ petitions regarding restraint order not to widen the road stands rejected.
8. Smt.M.C.Nagashree, learned HCGP, is permitted to file Memo of Appearance within four weeks.
9. In view of disposal of the petition, I.A.1/2012 filed for vacating stay does not survive for consideration and the same is disposed of.
SD/-
JUDGE KM