IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL No.1164 OF 2016 (LB-RES) BETWEEN:
M.G. RASTHE NAGARIKARA HITARAKSHANA SAMITHI (R) M.G.ROAD, TARIKERE-577 228 CHIKKAMANGALURU DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR.T.S. VITTAL RAO ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. K.B. MONESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKAMANGALUR DISTRICT CHIKKAMANGALURU-577 201.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TARIKERE CHIKKAMANGALURU DISTRICT TARIKERE-577 228.
3. THE TAHASILDAR TARIKERE CHIKKAMANGALURU DISTRICT TARIKERE-577 228.
4. TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL TARIKERE CHIKKAMANGALURU DISTRICT TARIKERE-577 228 (BY SRI LAXMINARAYANA, AGA FOR RESPONDENT Nos.1 TO 3 SRI D.C. JAGADEESH, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR/RESPONDENT No.4) ... RESPONDENTS THIS APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN WRIT PETITION No.5838/2016 DATED 23/04/2016.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 23.04.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.5838 of 2016, in disposing off the writ petition, while directing the writ petitioner-Society to vacate and hand over possession to the respondents within a week, the writ petitioner has filed this appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that a resolution is passed by the 4th respondent – Town Municipal Council, Tarikere, by placing reliance on Annexure-J dated 21.01.2016 seeking to widen the M.G. road in Tarikere Town, on either side of the National Highway 206, B.H. Road, between Sharada Bhavan, Galihalli Cross, Banashankari Temple Circle. Therefore, it is pleaded that if at all the land is required for a public purpose, the same will have to be acquired, after following the due procedure in a manner known to law.
3. The same is disputed by the leaned counsel for the respondents.
4. On hearing learned counsels, we are of the view, that appropriate interference is called for. No property of a citizen can be acquired except in accordance with law. If the respondents were to acquire the property of the appellant-Society, then the same would have to be done in a manner known to law and in accordance with law. Therefore, the direction to the appellant to hand over possession is erroneous.
5. Primarily the property cannot be acquired merely on the basis of a resolution. The land has to be acquired in a manner known to law. Until the same is done, the land cannot be forcibly taken away by the appellant.
6. However, we are of the view, if at all there is any such acquisition, it is for the appellant to establish that the land has been acquired without following due process of law. However the appellant - Society is always at liberty to protect its right by approaching the Civil Court and for a declaration in respect of the lands in question, in view of the alleged acquisition.
7. Hence, the writ appeal is disposed off, with a direction that, that portion of the impugned order dated 23.04.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition No.5838 of 2016 in directing the appellant-Society ‘to vacate on their own to enable the respondents- authorities to widen the road’ is set aside.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE NG* CT:bms