The Holy Family Church vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 June, 2020

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

The Holy Family Church vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 June, 2020

Bench: P. B. Bajanthri

                          1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2020

                      BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI

     WRIT PETITION NO.8042 OF 2020 (LB - RES)

BETWEEN:

THE HOLY FAMILY CHURCH,
CHURCH EXTENSION,
THURUNURU ROAD,
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
REPRESENTED BY PARISH PRIEST,
REV. FR.LANCY D'SOUZA,
S/O SRI.FELIX D'SOUZA.             ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI.R.A.DEVANAND, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
       REPRESENTED BY ITS
       UNDER SECRETARY,
       DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL
       ADMINISTRATION,
       VIDHANA SOUDHA,
       VIDHANA VEEDI ROAD,
       BANGALORE - 560 001.

2.     CHITRADURGA CITY
       MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
       CHITRADURGA - 577 501.

       REPRESENTED BY ITS
                              2

      COMMISSIONER.                ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT.M.C.NAGASHREE, AGA FOR R1;
    SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R-2 DISPENSED
    (VIDE ORDER DATED 19.06.2020))

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DECLARE THE ACTION OF THE R-2 IN PROPOSING TO
DEMOLISH THE BUILDING OF THE PETITIONER
MOREFULLY DESCRIBED IN THE SCHEDULE IS ONE
WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW AND WITHOUT
JURISDICTION AND ETC.

    THIS  WRIT   PETITION   COMING    ON  FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:-

                          ORDER

In the instant petition the petitioner has sought the following relief:

"1. declare the action of the respondent No.2 in proposing to demolish the building of the petitioner morefully described in the schedule is one without authority of law and without jurisdiction.

2. direct the respondent No2 not to demolish any portion of schedule properties A and B respectively for purpose of widening the road without due process of law.

3. Grant an interim order of injunction against respondent No.2 not to proceed with the work of execution of demolition of the schedule properties."

2. The petitioner has not produced any material to show that there is a threat of demolition. The second respondent is stated to have issued notice on 01.01.2020 asking the petitioner to furnish various documents and the petitioner is stated to have furnished requisite documents. The petitioner's presumption and assumption regarding demolishing the petitioner's property is without any acquisition proceeding and it is only on apprehension. On apprehension, the writ petition cannot be entertained. Thus, the writ petition is premature.

3. The first respondent is hereby directed to issue necessary directions to the second respondent if there is any threat of demolition of petitioner's property in the case of widening of road, required only after issuance of preliminary notification and final notification 4 with regard to petitioner's land to be acquired and further ample opportunity should be given to the petitioner before acquiring the petitioner's property. Official respondents are hereby directed to take necessary steps before taking any adverse action against the petitioner's land/building including the issuance of notice to the petitioner.

With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.

Service of notice to the second respondent is dispensed with since no adverse order is passed against the second respondent.

Sd/-

JUDGE SSD

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court