Karnataka High Court
Smt Channamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 October, 2024
Author: B M Shyam Prasad
Bench: B M Shyam Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:43367
WP No. 18074 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 18074 OF 2023 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT CHANNAMMA
W/O LATE BETTAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
R/AT NO.2215,
DEVAIAHANAHUNDI,
SRIRAMPURA 2ND STAGE,
MYSURU-570023.
2. SRI RAMESH
S/O LATE BETTAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT NO.2/215,
Digitally DEVAIAHANAHUNDI,
signed by SRIRAMPURA 2ND STAGE,
ANAND N
Location:
MYSURU-570023.
HIGH ...PETITIONERS
COURT OF
KARNATAKA (BY SRI. GANAPATI BHAT VAJRALLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:43367
WP No. 18074 of 2023
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
MYSORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
ZONAL COMMISSIONER OFFICE,
ZONAL OFFICE-02,
MYSURU-570005.
3. THE COMMISSIONER
MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
(MUDA),
KAJJIHUNDI, JLB ROAD,
MYSURU-570005.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. PALLAVA R., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. T.P.VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE IMPUGNED INTIMATION LETTER/NOTICE DTD
19.06.2023, BEARING SL.NO.MYNA.PRA/KI.A/VA.KA-
02/2022-23, ISSUED BY THE R2 FOR DEMOLITION OF
PETITIONERS HOUSE CONSTRUCTED ON THE
SCHEDULE PROPERTY, AS PER ANNEXURE-J.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners assert they own the property measuring 33 ft x 65 ft in Junjur No.135, subsequent Site No.133, Devaiahana Hundi, Srirampura, Ward -3- NC: 2024:KHC:43367 WP No. 18074 of 2023 No.65, Mysuru Taluk [the subject property] and the petitioners have called in question the notice issued by the second respondent [Annexure-J]. This impugned notice is preceded by two other notices and one of such notices [dated 09.09.2022] is produced as Annexure-G. It is seen from this notice that the petitioners are called upon to produce documents in the light of a representation filed by the applicant who now wants to come on record stating that the petitioners' property is acquired by the third respondent for formation of a road.
2. Sri. Ganapati Bhat Vajralli, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the impugned notice as also the earlier notice, are issued only at the instance of the impleading applicant, and that there is no proposal to acquire any portion of the petitioners' property. The petitioners also have not put up any new construction in the property and the present construction is in existence for many -4- NC: 2024:KHC:43367 WP No. 18074 of 2023 decades. Sri. T. P. Vivekananda, a learned standing counsel for the third respondent, invites this Court's attention to the stand taken in writing, and this stand reads as under:
"3. As per the records maintained by this Respondent the land measuring 1 acre 11 guntas in Sy. No.108/1A, 1 acre 11 guntas in Sy.No.108/B and 1 acre 15 guntas including Kharab land of 6 guntas in Sy.No.108/1C and 1 acre 34 guntas in Sy.No.108/2A, 1 acre 34 guntas including kharab land of 3 guntas in Sy. No.108/3A, totally measuring 7acre 25 guntas has been acquired through mutual consent and compensation has been paid accordingly. However remaining extent of land comprised in Sy.No.108 is in Gramatana and therefore this Respondent has not issued any notification to acquire the said Gramatana area. Upon spot inspection of the subject land this Respondent has found that in the road measuring 9 mtrs which is perpendicular to Devaiana Hundi Main Road, there is a residential house and the said road is presently within the jurisdiction to Mysore City Corporation. Since the entire Layout has been transfer to Mysore City Corporation, there is no proposal from the third respondent authority -5- NC: 2024:KHC:43367 WP No. 18074 of 2023 to construct or develop the above mentioned road."
3. Sri. Pallava R., the learned counsel for the second respondent, is heard for final disposal in the light of the terms of the notice as referred to above and the third respondent's stand. Sri. Rahul Cariappa, the learned Additional Government Advocate, is also heard as is Sri. V. Manjunath Prasad, the learned counsel for the applicant who now wants to come on record as an additional respondent.
4. This Court must opine that the third respondent's stand leaves no room for doubt that the petitioners' property has not been acquired, and if the petitioners' property is not acquired and is part of Village Gramatana now within the limits of the second respondent, this Court must conclude that the reason for issuance of the impugned notice is -6- NC: 2024:KHC:43367 WP No. 18074 of 2023 completely specious and that the impugned notice must fail on that score.
5. However, Sri. Pallava R. submits that quashing of the impugned notice could be construed as tying down the second respondent from taking any action if there is any construction or proposal to construct without obtaining approval. It is needless to observe that this disposal cannot restrict the second respondent from initiating proceedings if there is occasion for the same. Hence, with such observations, the petition is allowed quashing the impugned notice dated 19.06.2023 [Annexure-J].
Consequentially, all the pending applications also stand disposed of.
SD/-
(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE RB