Karnataka High Court
Mahadevamma W/O Nagaraj Gajre And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka & Ors on 17 April, 2017
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B.Veerappa
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA
WRIT PETITION NOS.201652-201656/2017
& 201752-753/2017 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN
1. MAHADEVAMMA W/O NAGARAJ GAJRE
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
2. SMT. MAREMMA W/O SUBHASH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
3. SMT. MALLAMMA W/O GIRIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
4. SMT. NINGAWWA W/O MALLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
5. SRI. GURURAJA S/O NAGARAJA
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
6. SRI. SHARANAPPA S/O SHANKRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
7. SMT. DEVAMA @ DEVAKEMMA
W/O DHARMANNA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
ALL R/AT WARD NO.2
DEVINAGARA
TALUK SHAHAPURA
DIST: YADAGIRI
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI MD.ABDUL QUAYUM, ADV.)
2
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPT. OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
VIKASASOUDHA
BANGALORE-560001
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
YADAGIRI -585 223
3. THE COMMISSIONER
CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
SHAHAPUR
DISTRICT YADAGIRI-585201
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ARCHANA P. TIWARI, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI GOURISH S. KASHAMPUR, ADV. FOR R3)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
& 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT
OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTICES
BERING NO. NASASHA/NOTICE/2016-17 DATED 25.03.2017
ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 HEREIN/THE
COMMISSIONER, TMC AT SHAHAPUR VIDE ANNEXURES -
A1,B1,C1,D1,E1,F1 AND G1 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
Smt.Archana P. Tiwari, learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Sri Gourish S. Khashampur, learned counsel takes notice for respondent No.3.
2. The petitioners have filed the present writ petitions for a writ of certiorari to quash the notices dated 25.03.2017 as per Annexures-A1, B1, C1, D1, E1, F1 and G1 issued by the third respondent - Commissioner, Town Municipal Council, Shahapur and direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to allot them available Government sites under the Ashraya or any other Scheme for the poor people as per law.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that they are poor labourers working as Safai Karamcharis, road side vendors and daily wage coolie, working for the Government as well as private contractors in Shahapur 4 Town of Yadgiri district. It is their further case that their ancestors had migrated to the town of Shahapur 30 years back to work as labourers for canal project under KBJNL Corporation and they were given the present parcel of plots for accommodation by the then Authorities without any written orders. After some time, the labourers have sold their meager land holdings in their village and invested the proceeds from such sale to construct the houses on the plots allotted to them 25 years back and they have been staying on these plots since then. The CMC, Shahapur formed house sites in land bearing Sy.Nos.105 and 106 and distributed the same. They left out from the said allotment. They have obtained electricity connection to their houses and also Aadhar Cards were also issued to them based on their correct address.
4. It is further case of the petitioners that in the year 2016, the State Government notified the 5 schemes for regularization of plots under the Karnataka Town and City Planning Regulation 76-FF and under the City Municipal Corporation Regulation 321-A and the Karnataka City Municipal Council Regulation 187- A. The petitioners have applied for regularization of their houses under the said scheme as per the State Government notification in the year 2016. Currently, the said applications are pending in the office of the City Municipal Corporation, Shahapur. While so, the Commissioner, City Municipal Corporation, Shahapur has served individual notices on 25.03.2017 of eviction and demolition to the petitioners without disposing their regularization applications and claimed that the land on which the petitioners currently residing is for the purpose of public garden.
5. It is further case of the petitioners that in the reply submitted by them, they have stated about their possession and requested the City Municipal 6 Authority of Shahapur not to dispossess them from their houses without disposing of their applications for regularization of houses in accordance with law. Therefore, they are before this Court for the relief sought for.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
7. Sri Md. Abdul Quayum, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the third respondent without following the principles of natural justice and without holding any enquiry has issued show cause notices as per Annexures-A1, B1, C1, D1, E1, F1 and G1. In response to the said notices, the petitioners have filed their objections and contended that they have filed applications for regularization of their houses which are pending in the office of CMC, Shahapur. The petitioners cannot be dispossessed from the said sites and the impugned action of the third respondent is in utter 7 violation of the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is further contended that the third respondent has not followed the proper procedure as prescribed under the provisions of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974 since, the petitioners are not residing in the land belonging to CMC, Shahapur. It is further contended that if any eviction order is passed, the petitioners will lose their valuable right to get the regularization of the properties under the new Scheme of the State Government. Therefore, he sought to quash the impugned notices issued by the third respondent.
8. Per contra, Smt.Archana P. Tiwari, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the writ petitions filed by the petitioners against the notices of eviction is premature and the petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of maintainability.
8
9. Sri Gourish S. Khashampur, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that what challenged is only the impugned eviction notices issued to the petitioners directing them to file their objections if any within seven days from the date of issuance of the notices failing which they will take action in accordance with the provisions of Karnataka Municipalities Act. Therefore, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are not maintainable as against the show cause notices. Hence, he sought for dismissal for the writ petitions.
10. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record carefully.
11. It is the specific case of the petitioners that they are working as Safai Karamcharis, road side vendors and daily wage coolies, working for the Government as well as private contractors in Shahapur 9 town, Yadgiri district. According to them, they are residing in Sy.Nos.105 and 106 of Devinagar and about 20 years back they have allotted the plots and they are residing in those plot since then. The CMC, Shahapur has formed a house plots in Sy.Nos.105 and 106 and distributed to the petitioners. It is also their case that they have obtained electricity connection to their houses and the concerned authorities have also issued Aadhaar Cards to the petitioners. They have also filed applications for regularization of their houses and the same have not been considered by the respondents.
12. It is the specific case of the respondents that the petitioners have unauthorizedly occupied the lands in Sy.Nos.105 and 106 and the same have not been distributed to them as alleged. Hence, the question of giving electricity connection and Aadhaar Cards do not arise. The respondents also pointed out that the Aadhaar Cards clearly indicates that they are not 10 residing in Sy.Nos.105 and 106 but some of them claims that they are residing at Buddha Nagar, Shahapur, Yadgir district and some of them are claimed that they are residing in Devinagar.
13. The fact remains that all the petitioners are residing in different places of Shahapur town. According to the petitioners, they have filed representations/applications for regularization of their houses to the concerned authority but the respondents disputed the said fact that the petitioners have not filed any applications to the concerned authority. All these disputed facts have to be considered and decided by the third respondent, who is the competent authority and shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
14. Without adverting to the merits and demerits of the case advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is suffice to permit the petitioners to file their detail representation along with the documents to prove their 11 case before the third respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On such detail representation along with the documents by the petitioners, the third respondent shall consider the same after hearing all the petitioners and pass a speaking orders in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of the submission of representation along with the documents by the petitioners. Till such consideration, the petitioners shall not be dispossessed from the lands/sites in question by the respondents.
Sd/-
JUDGE Srt `