Karnataka High Court
Sri. H. P. Ramesh vs The Chief Executive Officer on 19 September, 2019
Author: H T Narendra Prasad
Bench: H. T. Narendra Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
W.P.No.12385 OF 2016(LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
Sri.H.P.Ramesh,
S/o Late. Panchaksharaiah,
Aged about 42 years,
Residing at Haradagere Village,
Nittur Hobli, Gubbi Taluk,
Tumkuru District-572 216. ... Petitioner
(By Sri. H.C.Prakash, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Panchayath,
Tumakuru-572 102.
2. Executive Officer,
Taluk Panchayath,
Gubbi-572 216.
3. Panchayath Development Officer,
Alalughatta Grama Panchayath,
Hagalvadi Hobli,
Gubbi Taluk-572 216.
4. Deputy Director of Public Instruction,
Department of Public Education,
CSI Layout, Tumakuru-572 216.
2
5. Block Education Officer,
Department of Primary Education,
Near APMC Yard,
Gubbi-572 216.
6. The Deputy Commissioner,
Tumakuru District,
Tumakuru- 572 101. ... Respondents
(By Sri.Naveen J.N., Advocate for
Sri. A.Nagarajappa, Advocate for R1 & R2:
Sri.M.A. Subramani, HCGP for R4 to R6:
R3 is served)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to direct the respondents to
consider the representation of the petitioner dated: 10.03.2015
(Annexure-C1, C2, C3, C4 & C5) and consequently direct the
respondents to acquire the 0.03 and 0.06 guntas of land in
Sy.No.51 of Haradagere Village, Nittur Hobli, Gubbi Taluk,
Tumku District belonging to the petitioner and etc.
This writ petition, coming on for Preliminary hearing in 'B'
Group, this day, the Court, made the following:
ORDER
In this writ petition the petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the representations vide Annexure-C series dated 10.03.2015 on the ground that without acquiring the land the respondents have formed the road in the petitioner's property.
3
2. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of the property bearing Sy.No.51 measuring 2 acres 8 guntas of Haradagere Village, Nittur Hobli, Gubbi Taluk, Tumkur District. He traced his title to different title deeds and documents. It is alleged by the petitioner that without there being any acquisition proceedings initiated and without following due process of law, the respondents, along with the other officials formed a road in the part of the petitioner's property and also the other part of the land has been utilized for construction of the school building.
3. Sri H.C.Prakash, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner has not encroached any portion of the Government property. The respondent authority without acquiring the property formed the road depriving the petitioner from his livelihood, thereby affecting the fundamental rights.
4. In response to the contentions urged by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri M.A.Subramani, learned Government Pleader appearing for the State and the 4 learned counsel appearing for the Panchayat submitted that the land on which the road has been formed and the school building constructed is the property of the Government. The authority has not formed the road or constructed the school building in the property belonging to the petitioner.
5. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find from the materials on record that the petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of the property bearing Sy.No.51 measuring 2 acres 8 guntas. He is tracing the title to certain documents. While it is important that formation or widening of road has to be attended to on priority, as it is a matter of public interest, it cannot be forgotten that rights of the citizens cannot be jeopardized in the said process. On the other hand, the claims of the petitioner who assert his rights as owner of the land, cannot be denied by taking decisions unilaterally by the respondent - authorities. Under these circumstances, it is necessary that the authority has to hear the petitioner personally and pass an order as to whether the property on which the road has been formed and the school building has been constructed 5 belongs to the petitioner or not. In this case, the petitioner has produced some revenue records to show that he is the owner of the property. His possession shall not be disturbed except by due process of law and by acquiring the properties by specifying the extent of land that would be required for road widening or construction of the school building. If the authority found that the road formation and the school constructed the property does not belong to the petitioner the petitioner is not entitled for any compensation.
6. In the light of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:
(i) Petitioner shall file statement of objections along with the necessary documents before the Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur District, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;
(ii) The Deputy Commissioner shall consider the objections and hear the petitioner by providing 6 personal hearing and thereafter pass a considered order;
(iii) After the enquiry, if the Deputy Commissioner finds that the property in dispute is a Government property, then the petitioner is not entitled for any compensation. If the property belongs to the petitioner and he has not encroached the land, the authorities have to proceed in accordance with law to acquire the land by specifying the extent of area required for the formation of the road and construction of the school building and by paying compensation to the petitioner as per law.
Sd/-
JUDGE Cm/-