Karnataka High Court
Ramchandra S/O Narayan Bhat Pujari vs The State Of Karnataka on 31 July, 2018
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
Bench: S.N.Satyanarayana
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
W.P.No.81466/2012 (GM-PP)
Between:
Ramchandra S/o Narayan Bhatt Pujari
Age: 60 years, Occ: Retd. Govt. Servant
R/o Deval Ghangapur, Tq: Afzalpur
Dist: Gulbarga
... Petitioner
(By Smt. Pankaja R. Pujari, Advocate - Absent)
And:
1. The State of Karnataka
Represented by the Principal Secretary
Department of Revenue
M.S. Building
Ambedkar Vidhi, Bangalore- 1
2. The Deputy Commissioner
Gulbarga District Gulbarga - 585 102
3. The Asst. Commissioner
Gulbarga Sub-Division
Gulbarga - 585 102
4. The Tahasildar
Taluka Office Afzalpur
Dist: Gulbarga - 585 102
5. The Secretary
Gram Panchayat Deval Ghanagpur
2
Tq: Afzalpur, Dist: Gulbarga - 585 102
... Respondents
(By Sri K.M. Ghate, AGA for R1 to R4;
Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, Advocate for R5)
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying to declare that the demolition
of the petitioner's building bearing shop No.2/76 in Sy.No.56
measuring 32x16 totally measuring 512 sq. fts. situated at
Devalghangapur, Tq: Afzalpur, Dist: Gulbarga illegal and
unwanted, etc.
This petition is coming on for preliminary hearing in
'B' group, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER
The petitioner herein is claiming that he is the owner of Shop bearing No.2/76 in Sy.No.56, measuring 32 x 16 totally measuring 512 Sq. fts. situated at Devalghangapur, Taluka Afzalpur, District Gulbarga.
2. His grievance is that the said building is demolished illegally without notice to him. Hence, the present writ petition is filed seeking declaration that demolition of petitioner's building is illegal and also for 3 a direction to respondents to restore him to possession of the said shop, measuring 512 Sq. fts. or in the alternative to acquire the petitioner's property bearing Shop No.2/76 comprised in Sy.No.56, measuring to an extent of 512 Sq. fts. either under Land Acquisition Act or under any other law and to pay compensation and also for a direction to consider his representation dated 27.01.2012 and pass such other orders.
3. In this proceeding after service of notice, the respondents-State has entered appearance and filed statement of objections along with four documents which are shown as Exs.R1 to R4 wherein it is stated that the property belonging to Dattatreya Temple of Devalghangapur was illegally occupied by some people and the same is required to be removed since it was causing inconvenience to the devotees who are visiting the temple. It is in this background, the representation dated 07.03.2007 was addressed to the Secretary of 4 Gram Panchayat, Devalghangapur. It is based on the said representation by the Executive Officer of Devalghangapur Temple, Ghangapur, the Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Devalghangapur issued a public notice vide No.V.P./DG/06-07 dated 09.03.2007 and thereafter has removed the illegal constructions which has come up on the road and as well as within the property which is belonging to the temple.
4. It is in the process, all unauthorized constructions are removed and it is contended that removal of illegal construction has taken place in the year 2007 and that whether the alleged property of petitioner was involved in the said demolition of illegal construction is not within the knowledge of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 inasmuch as no separate representation was given to the respondent Nos.1 to 4 along with title deeds of the property to demonstrate that the petitioner Ramchandra S/o Narayan Bhatt 5 Pujari was owner of aforesaid land. In the absence of that, it is stated that his prayer cannot be considered. Similar stand is taken by counsel for 5th respondent also.
5. On going through the documents available on record, this Court is unable to understand what is the actual date of demolition in which the shop of the petitioner is said to have been demolished. Even according to the valuation report, which is produced by them is dated 28.10.2010, which is at Annexure-E.
6. In this background, this Court is unable to come to a conclusion whether the petitioner was owner of the property referred to in the writ petition and whether the same was demolished unauthorizedly, all this can be decided only in an appropriate proceedings which has to be initiated in the competent Court of law, but not by filing petition under Article 226 of the 6 Constitution of India where the correctness or otherwise of that cannot be decided.
With such observation, this writ petition is dismissed in reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court, subject to period of limitation.
Sd/-
JUDGE BL Ct: RRJ