IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NOS. 59721-59722/2014 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
1. SRI. P. VEERANA GOWDA S/O P.RAMANAGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT GOWLI STREET, HARAPANAHALLI, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-570 024 2. SRI.M.CHANDRASHEKAR S/O SRI.MAHALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT 12TH WARD, KASHISANGAMESHWARA EXTENSION, HARAPANAHALLI, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-570 024 (BY SRI. RAHUL P, ADV. FOR SRI. DEEPAK J., ADV) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER HARAPANAHALLI, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-570024.
... PETITIONERS 3. THE TAHSILDAR HARAPANAHALLI, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-570 024.
4. THE CHIEF OFFICER HARAPANAHALLI TOWN MUNICIPALITY, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-570 002.
(BY SRI. Y. D. HARSHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 ... RESPONDENTS SMT. AKKAMAHADEVI HIREMATH, ADV. FOR R4) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO DEMOLISH BUILDINGS WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri. Rahul P., for Sri. Deepak J., learned counsel for the petitioners.
Sri. Y. D. Harsha, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 3. Smt. Akkamahadevi Hiremath, learned counsel for respondent No.4.
2. Petitions are admitted for hearing. With consent of the parties, same are heard finally.
3. In these petitions, the petitioners inter alia seek writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to demolish the building of the petitioner without due process of law.
4. Sri. Y. D. Harsha, learned Additional Government Advocate, submits that suitable action, if any, shall be taken strictly in accordance with law.
5. In view of the aforesaid submission and in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Lallu Yeshwant Singh (Dead) by his legal representatives vs. Rao Jagdish Singh & Ors.’, AIR 1968 SC 620, and taking into account the fact that right to hold the property is a constitutional right, the writ petitions are disposed of with the direction to the respondents to take action, if so advised, against the property of the petitioners, strictly in accordance with law.
6. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE RD