Karnataka High Court
Bhanudas R Meharwade vs Hubli Dharwad Municipal Corporation ... on 20 March, 2025
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5125
WP No. 101238 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
WRIT PETITION NO. 101238 OF 2025 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. YALLAPPA AMBASA GUDI,
AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: GUDI DRESS, DAJIBANPETH,
HUBBALLI.
2. RAVINDRA AMBASA GUDI,
AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: GUDI DRESS, DAJIBANPETH,
HUBBALLI.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PRAKASH K.JAWALKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BHANUDAS RAMCHNADRASA MEHERWADE,
Digitally signed by AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
PREMCHANDRA M R R/O: DAJIBANPETH, HUBBALLI.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. DATTA MOHANDAS HABIB,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: DAJIBANPETH, HUBBALLI.
3. SMT. ASHWINI DATTA HABIB,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: DAJIBANPETH, HUBBALLI.
4. ARYAN DATA HABIB,
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: DAJIBANPETH, HUBBALLI.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5125
WP No. 101238 of 2025
5. HARSHITA DATTA HABIB,
AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: DAJIBANPETH, HUBBALLI.
6. HUBBALLI DHARWAD
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
HUBBALLI.
7. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
HUBBALLI DHARWAD,
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
ZONAL NO.9, HUBBALLI.
8. THE POLICE INSPECTOR,
TOWN POLICE STATION, HUBBALLI.
9. THE POLICE COMMISSIONER,
NAVA NAGAR, HUBBALLI.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.M. SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R5;
SRI. G.I. GACHHINAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R6-R7;
SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA FOR R8-R9)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN
RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR HEARING-
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE
AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
Sri.Prakash K.Jawalkar., counsel for the petitioners, Sri.V.M.Sheelavant., counsel for respondents 1 to 5 and Sri.Praveen K.Uppar., AGA for respondents 8 and 9 have appeared in person.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5125 WP No. 101238 of 2025
2. The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents 6 to 9 to enforce the safety of the life and property of the petitioners and of the public from the illegal demolition work carried out by respondents 1 to 5.
b) Issue a Writ of Certiorari to quash Annexure-J bearing No. HDMC/S Aa 9/01/2024-2025 dated 18.02.2025 issued by respondent No.7 on a letter dated 18.02.2025 of respondent No.6 in favor of respondent No.2 and also to quash Annexure-J2 bearing No. HDMC/S Aa 9/01/2024-2025 dated 18.02.2025 issued by respondent No.7 on a letter of respondent No.6 dated 18.02.2025 in favor of respondent No.1.
3. The short facts are these:
It is stated that the petitioners are the owners of property bearing CTS No.3164, respondent No.1 is the owner of properties bearing CTS Nos.3161/1 to 3161/8 and 3162 and respondents 2 to 5 are the owners of the property bearing CTS -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:5125 WP No. 101238 of 2025 No.3163 all situated at Ward No.1, Dajibanpeth, Hubballi. The petitioners are neighbors of respondents 1 to 5. They contend that respondents 1 to 5 started demolishing their structures without seeking any permission from the Municipal Corporation. Hence, they objected to the same. The petitioners contended explicitly in the writ petition that the Assistant Commissioner, Hubballi Dharwad Municipal Corporation (HDMC) granted permission for the demolition with terms and conditions on 23.09.2024. The petitioners allege that respondents 1 to 5 started demolishing their structures illegally; there was a violation. The Assistant Commissioner, HDMC withdrew the permission and directed respondents 1 to 5 not to carry out any further demolition. The petitioner's grievance is about the accord of permission to respondents 1 to 5 for the demolition of their properties. Under these circumstances, the petitioners are before this Court.
4. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions.
Sri.Prakash K. Jawalkar, counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners have lodged a complaint with the -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:5125 WP No. 101238 of 2025 Corporation regarding the illegal demolition activities carried out by respondents 1 and 5.
Next, he submits that despite the notice issued by the Corporation, respondents 1 to 5 are proceeding with the demolition of the entire structures which will eventually damage the property of the petitioners who are the neighboring persons.
A further submission is made that respondents 1 to 5 are illegally demolishing their property by using unscientific methods. The illegal demolition has left the petitioners and their tenements to shut down their business premises. Counsel also submitted that respondents 1 to 5, are creating a dangerous situation for the lives of the petitioners, tenements, and the neighbors therein.
Counsel vehemently contended that that the properties are situated in a thickly populated marketplace and thousands of people and pedestrians walk through the properties thus endangering the safety of the people and their lives. Therefore, he submits that the action on the part of respondents 1 to 5 in demolishing their structures must be stopped and the reliefs -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:5125 WP No. 101238 of 2025 sought by the petitioners may be accorded by issuing a suitable writ.
Sri.V.M.Sheelavant., counsel for respondents 1 to 5 submits that the Assistant Commissioner, after getting a report from the engineers concerned granted a fresh permission on 18.02.2025. There is no violation. He argued by saying that the petitioner's grievance about the alleged encroachment or the, endangering the safety of the people and their lives cannot be agitated in the Writ jurisdiction. Counsel, therefore, submits that the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
5. Counsel for other respondents submitted that an appropriate order may be passed.
6. Heard the arguments and perused the writ papers with care.
7. The short controversy involved in the petition is about the alleged illegal demolition of the structures by respondents 1 to 5.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5125 WP No. 101238 of 2025 It is not in dispute that the petitioners and respondents 1 to 5 are neighbors and they are the owners of the properties bearing CTS No.3164, CTS Nos.3161/1 to 3161/8, 3162 and CTS No.3163 all situated at Ward No.1, Dajibanpeth, Hubballi. Suffice it to note that respondents 2 to 5 applied the Competent Authority for the demolition of their properties since they were in a dilapidated condition. The permission was accorded, however the same was withdrawn by the Assistant Commissioner, HDMC without notice to respondents 1 to 5. It is significant to note that respondents 1 to 5 once again requested the Authorities concerned for the demolition of their properties. A spot inspection was conducted and upon the report of the engineers concerned, the Assistant Commissioner accorded the permission for demolition of their properties on 18.02.2025. The permission accorded by the Assistant Commissioner is furnished along with the writ petition and the same is marked as Annexure-J. A perusal of the same reveals that a spot inspection was made and a report was submitted by the engineers concerned and the permission was accorded.
There is an allegation about the illegal demolition of the property and the same is affecting the general public at large. -8-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5125 WP No. 101238 of 2025 The petitioners are projecting public interest. The petitioners are attributing their thoughts, feelings and behaviors onto someone else. However, the matter is not a public interest matter. In the present case, respondents 1 to 5 are demolishing their own house after obtaining the necessary permission. Generally, the public has no direct interest in an individual demolishing their own house as it is a matter of private property rights. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be rejected.
8. Resultantly, the same is rejected.
Sd/-
(JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE RH/MRP LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 46