Karnataka High Court
Sri Nagaraju vs State Of Karnataka on 14 July, 2017
Author: Vineet Kothari
Bench: Vineet Kothari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
WRIT PETITION NOS.29710-29714/2017(LB-RES)
BETWEEN
1. Sri Nagaraju
S/o Late Mallegowda
Aged about 55 years
2. Deviramma
W/o Mayegowda
Aged about 75 years
3. T Ramu
S/o Late Ningamma
Aged about 60 years
4. Mariswamy
S/o Late Ningamma
Aged about 55 years
5. Kamalamma
W/o Late Puttamallegowda
Aged about 65 years
All the above 1 to 5
are residing at Rangasamudra Village
T Narasipura Taluk
Kasaba Hobli
Mysore District-571 101. ... PETITIONERS
(By Sri D C Deepak, Adv.)
Date of order :14.07.2017 in W.P.Nos. 29710-29714/2017
Sri Nagaraju and others vs.
The State of Karnataka and others
2/8
AND:
1. State of Karnataka
Represented by its Secretary
Vidhana Soudha
Ambedkar Veedhi
Bangalore-560 001.
2. Deputy Commissioner
Mysore Urban Development Authority
Mysore District-577 119.
3. The Panchayat Development Officer
Rangasamudra
Kasaba Hobli
T. Narasipura Taluk
Mysore District-571 101.
4. The Tahasildar
Taluk Office
T Narasipura Taluk
Mysore District-571 101.
5. Executive Officer
Taluk Panchayat
T Narasipura
Mysore-571 101.
6. Assistant Executive Engineer
Varuna Special PWD Department
Paduvarahalli
Valmiki Road
Mysore District-571 101. ....RESPONDENTS
(By Sri A K Vasanth, AGA for R1, R4 and R6)
These Writ Petitions are filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to restrain the R2 and R3 from
forming any road in the schedule property without acquiring the
land, and without following due process of law.
Date of order :14.07.2017 in W.P.Nos. 29710-29714/2017
Sri Nagaraju and others vs.
The State of Karnataka and others
3/8
These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing
this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
Mr. D C Deepak, Adv. for Petitioner. Mr. A K Vasanth, AGA for Respondents 1, 4 and 6.
1. The petitioner Nagaraju and others have approached this Court against the notice at Annexure-H dated 7.6.2017 issued by the Rangasamudra Grama Panchayathi office, T. Narasipura Taluk, Mysuru District.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the representations made by the petitioners vide Annexures-
B(dated 21.06.2017), D(dated 21.06.2017) and E(dated-
nil) have not been decided by the respondent-Grama Panchayath.
3. The dispute pertains to consideration of widening of the road and the formation of road which according to the petitioners is formed in the private land of the petitioner.
The notice at Annexure-H dated 7.6.2017 is produced by Date of order :14.07.2017 in W.P.Nos. 29710-29714/2017 Sri Nagaraju and others vs. The State of Karnataka and others 4/8 the petitioner today before this Court. The relevant portion of the said notice is quoted below for reference:
" Sri Nagaraju son of Tagaduru
Mallegwoda, r/o Rangasamudra Village of
Rangasamudra Grama Panchayath, Kasaba Hobli, T Narasipura Taluk, you are hereby informed through this notice that, the road leading to Raja Parameshwari Channel from the house of R. Sannegowda was developed by the Panchayath Raj Department in the year 1994-95. But you have closed the said road and have encroached the same by erecting stone pillars and huts which has caused very inconvenience to the general public. But now in the year 2016-17 year, grants have been sanctioned by the Public Works Department for development of the said road. When the road development works was started, you have obstructed and have stopped development work of the said road. As per the statements of the relative of the original khatha holders of said land, open land was left for making road. Therefore, you are hereby informed to produce original documents Date of order :14.07.2017 in W.P.Nos. 29710-29714/2017 Sri Nagaraju and others vs. The State of Karnataka and others 5/8 pertaining to the said land at the Office of the Grama Panchayath. Failing to produce the same, development work of the said road will be taken up on 12.06.2017. It is hereby informed you that, in case of objections and obstructions from your part, legal action will be taken against you as per rules.
Sd/-
Panchayath Development Office Rangasamudra Grama Panchayath T. Narasipura."
4. Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that let the notice be determined by concerned Grama Panchayat.
5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, this Court is satisfied that it would be premature for this Court to go into the merits of the objections raised by the petitioners.
6. Petitioners have two options in the matter:-
Date of order :14.07.2017 in W.P.Nos. 29710-29714/2017 Sri Nagaraju and others vs. The State of Karnataka and others 6/8
(i) Insofar as the representations the concerned Grama panchayath, in pursuance of the notice at Annexure-H, the petitioners may appear before the said authority, in the first instance, on 24.7.2017 and the said authority is expected to decide the representations of the petitioners in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing within a period of two weeks from today.
(ii) In view of the judgment of this Court in V Dhamodaran and others -versus- Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and others in WP Nos.3880-
3881/2014 decided on 28.11.2016 where it is held that these type of writ petitions are not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and this Court has directed such parties to file a civil suit, the present petitioners may also approach the Civil Court. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are quoted below for ready reference.
Date of order :14.07.2017 in W.P.Nos. 29710-29714/2017 Sri Nagaraju and others vs. The State of Karnataka and others 7/8 "14. The petitioners, therefore, would be well advised to approach the said Tribunal itself and seek their impleadment in aforesaid pending appeal. If the learned Tribunal is satisfied about their bona fide and the locus standi that they need to be heard in the matter, the Tribunal is at liberty to implead them as party in the said appeals and as complainants, the present petitioners can lead their evidence and grievance before the said Tribunal.
15. In the alternative, they can also be directed by the Tribunal to approach the concerned public authorities like BBMP & BDA or Town Planning Authority itself first.
16. In case such an exercise is undertaken by the fact finding body like the Departmental authorities or the Tribunal and the petitioners are not satisfied with their decisions, they can still file Civil Suits separately against each of the private Respondents - Builders separately and Date of order :14.07.2017 in W.P.Nos. 29710-29714/2017 Sri Nagaraju and others vs. The State of Karnataka and others 8/8 impleading even the public authorities like BBMP & BDA etc., as defendants.
17. However, in view of the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to proceed further with this case and cases of this nature and holds that these type of writ petitions are not maintainable. The writ petitions, therefore, deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. No costs."
7. Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of with the above observations and directions. No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Cs/-