Karnataka High Court
K.G. Jagadeesh Wodeyar vs State Of Karnataka on 17 July, 2012
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
Bench: Ashok B. Hinchigeri
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI
WRIT PETITION NO.7960 OF 2011 [LA-RES]
BETWEEN
K.G. JAGADEESH WODEYAR
S/O LATE K G WODEYAR
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
OCC:AGRICULTURIST
NEAR JOG BUS STAND
B H ROAD, SAGAR-577401
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT ... PETITIONER
(BY:SRI CHANDRAKANTH PATEL, ADVOCATE FOR
M/S.S.JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL ASSOCIATES)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
M S BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (C & B)
K R CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560001
3. SUPERINTEDING ENGINEER
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS CIRCLE
K R CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560001
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS DIVISION
CHITRADURGA
2
5. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
SHIVAMOGGA
6. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER & LAND ACQUISITION
OFFICER, SHIVAMOGGA SUB-DIVISION
SHIVAMOGGA
7. THE COMMISSIONER
SAGAR CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
SAGAR-577401 ... RESPONDENTS
[BY:SRI K.KRISHNA, AGA, FOR R1,2 & 5
M/S.SINGHANIA & PARTNERS FOR R3, R4 & R6
SRI RAKESH H.D. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE FOR R7]
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF PROHIBITION,
PROHIBITTING THE RESPONDENTS FROM DEMOLISHING
THE BUILDING OF THE PETITIONER AS SHOWN IN THE
SCHEDULE HEREIN BELOW WITHOUT ACQUISITION AND
WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner, who is the owner of the schedule property, has approached this Court with the apprehension that a portion of the building standing thereon is being demolished and used up for the road widening purpose.
3
2. Sri K.Krishna, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5 places on record the letter, dated 2.7.2012 of the Assistant Executive Engineer, National Highways Sub-Division, Shimoga and states that the schedule property is not being used up for the road widening purpose. The relevant paragraph of the said letter reads as hereunder:
"²æÃ.PÉ.f. dUÀ¢Ã±ï MqÉAiÀÄgï, ¸ÁUÀgÀ EªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£É ºÁUÀÆ ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀªÀÅ gÁ¶ÖçÃAiÀÄ ºÉzÁöÝj-206 gÀ°è Q.«ÄÃ.283.250gÀ JqÀ¨sÁUÀzÀ°è §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è ºÁ°Ã ®¨sÀå«gÀĪÀ eÁUÀzÀ°èAiÉÄÃ, ºÉzÁöÝj C©üªÀÈ¢üÝ¥Àr¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EªÀjUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹gÀĪÀ ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà jÃwAiÀÄ°èAiÀÄÄ CwPÀæ«Ä¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è ºÁUÀÆ ºÉzÁöÝj C©üªÀÈ¢üÝUÉ §¼À¹PÉÆArgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. F ¨sÁUÀzÀ°è ®¨sÀå«gÀĪÀ CUÀ®zÀ°è ºÉzÁÝj C©üªÀÈ¢üÝ¥Àr¸À¯ÁVzÉ, JA§ «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß vÀªÀÄä ªÀiÁ»wUÉ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ªÀÄvÉÆöÛªÉÄä vÀgÀ¯ÁVzÉ."
3. Sri Chandrakanth Patel, the learned counsel appearing for M/s.Jayakumar S. Patil Associates for the petitioner submits that a portion of the petitioner's building are marked for being demolished. 4
4. The letter, dated 2.7.2012 clearly states that the National Highway is being developed in the available space and that the schedule property is not being used for the purpose of developing the National Highway.
5. Recording the contents of the said letter and the submission made by the learned Additional Government Advocate thereon, I dispose of this petition.
6. Needless to observe that if any private property is required for a public purpose, the same shall be obtained by the Government/concerned authorities either by resorting to the compulsory acquisition of the lands or by holding negotiations with the owner of the private property for taking it on sale, lease, etc. basis. It is trite that nobody can be dispossessed of the property without following the due process of law.
Sd/-
JUDGE VGR