Karnataka High Court
Kurugod Sanna Hanumanthappa vs The Secretary on 5 December, 2018
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS
W.P.NOS.103783-103786/2016(GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. KURUGOD SANNA HANUMANTHAPPA
S/O KURUGOD SAKKRAPPA,
AGE: 65 YEARS, R/O 6TH WARD,
HOSAPETE, DIST:BALLARI.
2. DURUGAPPA S/O YALLAPPA,
DECEASED, REPRESENTED BY THE SON
TAYAPPA S/O DURUGAPPA,
AGE: 58 YEARS, R/O 10TH WARD,
HOSAPETE, DIST:BALLARI.
3. SMT.RATNAMMA W/O BASAYYA HIREMATH
AGE: 66 YEARS, R/O 6TH WARD,
HOSAPETE, DIST:BALLARI.
4. HARSHAKUMAR GROVER S/O HARABHAVAN GROVER,
AGE: 50 YEARS, R/O 6TH WARD,
HOSAPETE, DIST:BALLARI.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.CHETAN T. LIMBIKAI, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF MUNCIPAL ADMINISTRATION
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
VIDHANASOUDHA, BENGALURU.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BALLARI.
2
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSSIONER,
HOSAPETE, DIST: BALLARI.
4. THE COMMISSIONER CITY MUNICIPALITY
HOSAPETE, DIST: BALLARI.
5. THE SECRETARY,
TOWN PLAN AUTHORITY
HOSAPETE, DIST: BALLARI.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.VEENA HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 TO R3,
SRI.MRUTYUNJAYA TATA BANGI, ADV. FOR R4,
SRI.RAVI HEGDE, ADV. FOR R5)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO DEMOLISH THE
PROPERTY BEARING DOOR NO.359 AND ASSESSMENT NO.360,
BEARING DOOR NO.116 AND ASSESSMENT NO.123, BEARING
DOOR NO.358 AND ASSESSMENT NO.359, BEARING DOOR
NO.306 AND ASSESSMENT NO.307 BELONG TO THE
PETITIONER NO.1 TO 4 RESPECTIVELY SITUATED AT HAMPI
ROAD, IN HOSPET CITY OF BALLARI DISTRICT.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
Though the matters are coming up for hearing on interlocutory applications, with the consent of the learned counsels from both the sides, the matters are taken up for final disposal.3
2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the respondent-City Municipality, Hosapate in utilizing their properties for widening of the road and construction of drainage, without resorting to the acquisition proceedings.
3. The learned counsel for respondent No.4- City Municipal Council submits that, the issue is covered by a judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.105366/2015 and connected matters, which were disposed of on 12.08.2015. In those writ petitions, considering the provisions contained in Section 82(1) and (2) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, the petitioners were relegated to the Deputy Commissioner in view of the remedy available under Section 82 of the Act.
4. Petitioners were directed to file their claims in support of the ownership of the property, the buildings they have raised thereon, etc. before the 4 Deputy Commissioner within two weeks from the date of the disposal of the writ petitions. The respondent- Municipal Council was also directed to file its claims or objections to the representations that were to be given by the petitioners. The Deputy Commissioner was directed to consider the claim of the petitioners and the objections of the Municipal Council and thereafter pass orders in accordance with law. It was also directed that, if the Deputy Commissioner finds that the claim made by the petitioners regarding ownership of the property is false and that the property belongs to the Municipality, then all future action for widening of the road and demolition should be carried out strictly in accordance with law and after issuing notice to the occupants of such properties. It was also observed that, if the petitioners are aggrieved by the decision of the Deputy Commissioner, it is open to them to challenge the same before the competent civil Court under Sub-Section 2 of Section 82 of the said Act.
5
5. On the other hand, it was observed that, if the Deputy Commissioner returns the finding that any portion of the private property is being used for the road widening, owners of such land have to be compensated without any loss of time. The respondents were given two options. The said two options are as follows:
"(i) The Government of Karnataka shall immediately resort to the acquisition of lands under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013.
All the acquisition proceedings, including the passing of award and disbursement of the compensation, shall be completed within six months from the date of passing of the order by the Deputy Commissioner holding that a particular private property is used up for and in the course of the road-widening.
(ii) If the above course is not resorted to by the Government of Karnataka for whatever reason, then the Deputy Commissioner shall, within one month from the date of the time granted for complying with the above direction, pass an order determining the damages/compensation. If the quantification of the compensation- amount is not acceptable to any of the parties, they shall have the liberty of challenging the same before the competent civil court."
6
6. The respondent-City Municipal Council was also given an option to negotiate with the land owners by offering alternative property in lieu of cash- compensation. The displaced persons were also given liberty to seek benefits due under National Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2007 and also under the Schemes such as Ashraya Scheme, etc., in cases where they are applicable.
7. The decision of the Coordinate Bench was fortified by the Division Bench's judgment in W.P.No.21042/2011 and connected matters, disposed of on 01.09.2014.
8. This Court is in respectful agreement with the decision mentioned supra. The petitioners shall make their representations/claims before the Deputy Commissioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The Deputy Commissioner shall dispose of such 7 representations/claims in the light of the directions issued in W.P.No.105366/2015 referred supra and as expeditiously as possible in any case within an outer limit of ten weeks from the date of receipt of such representations/claims. All other observations and directions in W.P.No.105366/2015 shall also apply to this case.
9. The respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioners from the property in question or demolish any structure standing thereon for a period of twelve weeks from today.
Writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.
In view of disposal of the main matters, interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE MBS/-