IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD W.P.No.23517 OF 2015(GM-RES) BETWEEN:
A.C.Prashanth Aged about 33 years S/o A.R.Chandrashekhar Employment and business R/o No.6-7, Ishwaratemple Street Kollegala, Chamarajanagar District-579 440. … Petitioner (By Sri.S.V.Prakash, Advocate) AND:
1. State of Karnataka Represented by its Principal Secretary to Government Public Works Department M.S.Building, Bangalore-01.
2. The Chief Engineer Public Works Department (C&B) K.R.Circle, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi Bangalore-01.
3. The Superintending Engineer Public Works Department Mysuru Circle, Mysuru-579440.
4. The Executive Engineer Public Works Department Chamarajanagara Division Chamarajanagara-579440.
5. The Assistant Executive Engineer Public Works Department Kollegala Sub-Division Kollegala-571440.
6. The Deputy Commissioner Chamarajanagara District Chamarajanagara-579440.
7. The Assistant Commissioner Kollegala Sub-Division Kollegala-571440.
8. The City Municipal Council Kollegala Chamarajanagara District-571440. ... Respondents (By Smt. Niloufer Akbar, AGA. For R1 to R7: Sri.J.N.Naveen, Advocate for Sri.A.Nagarajappa, Advocate for R8) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to declare that the action of the respondents to demolish the portion of the building existing on the schedule property without following the procedures established by law as one without authority of law.
This writ petition, coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ Group, this day, the Court, made the following:
ORDER The petitioner is before this Court seeking for a direction not to demolish their property without due process of law.
2. The contention of the petitioner is that he is the owner of the property bearing Municipal No.1405 and site No.408 measuring 3.30 meters x 9.90 meters consisting of commercial shops having RCC roof situated at Dr.Rajkumar Road, Ward No.7, Kollegal City more fully described in the schedule. The apprehension of the petitioner is that the respondent without following the due process of law is trying to demolish the petitioner’s property. Therefore he has approached this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.52304/2012 disposed of on 10.04.2013.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that this writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.52304/2012.
5. In that view of the matter, in this case also, the respondents are directed that if they are of the opinion that any portion of the property in the possession of the petitioner is required for any purpose, at the outset there shall be a factual determination to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the petitioner is the owner of the property or whether there is encroachment. Such factual determination shall be made on providing opportunity to the petitioner. Thereafter, if it is found that it is an encroachment, appropriate action could be taken in accordance with law. However, if it is found that the petitioner is the owner of the property and if any portion is required for any public purpose, the same shall only be taken in accordance with law after providing opportunity to the petitioner. Needles to mention that until such factual determination is made and appropriate action in accordance with law is taken, the respondents shall not interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the property by the petitioner nor demolish the same.
6. In terms of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Cm/-