IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NOs.49207-49208/2016 (GM POLICE) BETWEEN:
1. SOBHA INNERCITY TECHNOPOLIS PRIVATE LIMITED, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT,1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.E-106, ‘SUNRISE CHAMBERS’, ULSOOR ROAD, BANGALORE-560042 REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR VICE-PRESIDENT AND AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. ASHOK KUMAR N B.
2. SOBHA LIMITED, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SOBHA DEVELOPERS LIMITED) A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT SARJAPUR-MARTHAHALLI OUTER RING ROAD, BELLANDUR POST, BANGALORE-560103 SENIOR VICE-PRESIDENT AND AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. ASHOK KUMAR N B. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ, ADV.) AND 1. SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TASK FORCE POLICE STATION HAVING ITS OFFICE AT HUDSON CIRCLE, NR ROAD, OPPOSITE TO LIC BUILDING, BANGALORE-560002.
2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, AN AUTHORITY CONSTITUTED UNDER THE KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1976, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT HUDSON CIRCLE, NR ROAD, OPPOSITE TO LIC BUILDING, BANGALORE-560002 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DISTRICT, BANGALORE-560001.
4. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE SOUTH SUB DIVISION, BANGALORE-560001.
5. TAHSILDHAR, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE-560001.
6. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, AN AUTHORITY CONSTITUTED UNDER THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 1976, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT KUMARAPARK WEST, BANGALORE – 560020, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIJAY KUMAR A.PATIL, AGA FOR R1, R3, R4 & R5, SRI K.N.PUTTEGOWDA, ADV. FOR R2, SRI. K.KRISHNA, ADV. FOR R6.) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE, DTD:30.8.2016 ADDRESSED BY R-1 TO P-2 MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A AS IT IS ARBITRARY AND ILLEGAL ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Mr. Suraj Govinda Raj, learned Counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. Vijaya Kumar A.Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents No.1, 3, 4 and 5.
Mr.K.N.Puttegowda, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2.
Mr.K.Krishna, learned counsel for respondent No.6.
The petitions are admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the matters are heard finally.
2. In these writ petitions, the petitioners, inter alia, seek the following reliefs:
“a) Stay the operation of the Impugned Notice, dated 30.08.2016, bearing No.SP/BMTF/GL/175/2016 addressed by Respondent No.1 to Petitioner No.2 marked as Annexure-A.
b) Stay further proceeding before Respondent No.1 based on Impugned Notice dated 30.08.2016 bearing No.SP/BMTF/GL/175/2016 addressed by Respondent No.1 to Petitioner No.2 marked as Annexure-A.
c) Restrain the Respondents from demolishing the compound wall constructed by Petitioners on the Petition Schedule Property.”
3. When the matters were taken up for hearing today, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioners are Builders and Developers and a show cause notice dated 30.08.2016 has been issued to the petitioners, by which the petitioner No.2 has been asked to show cause as to whether or not he has made an encroachment on the land admeasuring 2 guntas. It is further submitted that admittedly, the petitioner has responded to the aforesaid notice and has challenged the validity of the aforesaid notice before this Court. It is also submitted that since the writ petitions involve adjudication of disputed question of facts, therefore, writ petitions could not be entertained.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that another writ petition with regard to land in question is pending before this Court and therefore, this writ petition should be allowed.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The scope of jurisdiction with regard to interference with the show cause notice is well settled in the case of ‘UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER –vs- KUNISETTY SATYANARAYANA’ (2006) 12 SCC 28.
7. Admittedly, in the instant case, only show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner, to which the petitioner has responded to and has submitted reply. Even otherwise, the issue with regard to encroachment cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the same involves adjudication of facts. The show cause notice cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. Therefore, in the fact situation of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petitions with liberty to the petitioners to raise all objections before respondent No.1. Needless to state that respondent No.1 before proceeding further with the matter, shall deal with the objections raised by the petitioners in accordance with law by a speaking order. Till objections of the petitioners are decided, the ad-interim order granted by a Bench of this Court shall continue.
8. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed its opinion on merits of the case.
Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of.
Petitioners are at liberty to file additional objections before respondent No.1, if advised.
Sd/- JUDGE ln.