IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION Nos.12639-641 OF 2016 (LB-RES) Between:
1. Sri B.K. Ramesh S/o. B.Y. Krishnamurthy Aged about 55 years Near Kannika Parameshwari Temple Road, Belur Hassan-573 115.
2. Sri B.V. Chandru S/o. Venkatachalaiah Aged about 56 years Belur Main Road, Belur Hassan-573 115.
3. Mr. Syed Amjad Hussaini S/o. late Syed Kutub Peeran Aged about 45 years Belur Main Road, Belur Hassan-573 115. …Petitioners (By Sri. Vijaya Krishna Bhat.M, Advocate) And:
1. The State of Karnataka Vidhana Soudha Bangalore-560 001.
By its Chief Secretary.
2. The Deputy Commissioner Hassan District Hassan-573 201.
3. The Assistant Commissioner Sakaleshpura Sub-Division Sakaleshpura Hassan District-573 134.
4. The Town Municipality Belur, represented by its Chief Officer Belur Town, Hassan District-573 115.
5. The Assistant Director of Land Records Belur Taluk, Hassan Distirct-573 201.
6. The Chief Executive Officer National Highways Department P.W.D., Annex Building 2nd Floor, K.R. Circle Bangalore-560 001.
7. The Executive Engineer National Highway Division National Highway No.234 Mangalore-Villupuram Urva Store, Near Ganapathi Temple Ashoka Nagar, Mangalore-575 006.
8. The Executive Engineer National Highway Hassan Sub-Division National Highway No.234 Mangalore-Villupuram M.G. Road, Hassan-573 201.
9. The Special Land Acquisition Officer And Competent Authority National Highway No.234 Mangalore-Villupuram K.R. Circle, Bangalore-560 001.
10. The Superintendent of Police Hassan District, Hassan-573 201. …Respondents (By Sri. A. Nagarajappa, Advocate for R4, Sri. Anandishwra, HCGP for R1 to R3; R5, R9 & R10) These Writ Petition are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned notices dated 01.02.2016 issued by the respondent No.4, produced as Anneuxres-M, N and P.
These Writ Petitions coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The petitioners are before this Court assailing the notices dated 01.02.2016 issued by the respondent No.4, produced as Anneuxres-M, N and P to the petitions.
2. The petitioners are the tenants of the premises to which reference is made in the petitions and also indicated in the schedule to the impugned notices. Since the premises in which the petitioners are in possession is abutting to N.H.234, the respondents, with an intention to widen the same, had initiated certain action to demolish the construction existing on the periphery. At that stage, certain persons who were similarly situated as that of the petitioners as also the owners of the premises were before this Court in W.P.Nos.30070-73/2015 and certain other petitions. This Court while disposing of W.P.Nos.30070-73/2015 on 12.01.2016 has laid down the procedure to be followed. As has been explained in para 3 of the said order, a consideration relating to the proceedings claiming as tenants in such premises was also taken note and even in such cases, the action can only be initiated after determining the tenancy and following the due process of law to secure possession of such premises. In that light, since the petitioners herein claim to be the tenants, similar procedure is required to be followed, if the possession of the premises is to be determined. Though that was the position, through the impugned notices, respondent No.4 has ordered the eviction of the petitioners in respect of the properties concerned. It is in that light, the petitioners are before this Court.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition papers.
4. At the outset, having taken note of the order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.30070-30073/2015 dated 12.01.2016 and since it is seen that the same squarely applies to the case of the petitioners, a perusal of the impugned notices would at the outset indicate that the same are without jurisdiction. If the guidelines indicated in the similar petitions are taken into consideration, if the petitioners are found to be the tenants who are legally in occupation of the premises and if they are to be evicted, at the outset there should be determination of the tenancy and thereafter the proceedings is required to be held in accordance with law to evict them from the premises, if the premises is required for any other purpose including to demolish for road widening. The notices impugned herein does not suggest that the procedure as contemplated in law has been followed. Hence, the impugned notices would not be sustainable.
5. In that light, if at all the respondents are to proceed, appropriate course for them would be to determine the tenancy and thereafter notices as required under the provisions of the Public Premises Act is to be issued and only if the competent authority appointed under the Act proceeds further in accordance with law, any consideration therein would be made.
6. To that extent, liberty no doubt is reserved to the respondents to proceed further in accordance with law, if the need arises. For the present, since it is noticed that the impugned notices are not sustainable, the notices dated 01.02.2016 at Annexures-‘M’,‘N’ and ‘P’ are quashed. However, liberty as indicated above is reserved.
In terms of the above, the writ petitions stand disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE SSD