1/5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI WRIT PETITION Nos.56182-184/2017 (LB-RES) BETWEEN:
1. SRI. S.D. NAGARAJU SRI. DEVARSE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/O SATHANUR VILLAGE AND POST RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562120.
2. SRI. K. S. SUDHAKAR S/O SRI. K.L. SHIVALINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/O KADAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST SATHANOOR HOBLI-562124 RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
3. SRI. NAGENDRA SHARMA S/O SRI. B. SHESHADRAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/O M.T. DODDI, KADAHALLI POST SATHANOOR HOBLI-562124 RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
(BY Mr. SANJEEV B.L. ADV.,) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY PANCHAYATH RAJ DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.
... PETITIONERS 2. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER KANAKAPURA TALUK KANAKAPURA-562150.
3. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH KANAKAPURA-562150.
(BY Mr. A.K. VASANTH, AGA FOR R1) ... RESPONDENTS THESE W.Ps. ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICES DTD:8.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUK PANCHAYATH, KANAKAPURA VIDE ANNEXURE-D, E, F. GRANT AN AD-INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE OPERATION AND EXECUTION OF THE NOTICES DTD:8.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUK PANCHAYATH, KANAKAPURA VIDE ANNEXURE-D, E, F. DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE ABOVE W.P.
THESE W.Ps. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr. Sanjeev B.L. Adv. for Petitioner Mr. A.K. Vasanth, AGA for R1 1. The petitioners, three in number, namely, Mr.S.D.Nagaraju, Mr.K.S.Sudhakar & Mr.Nagendra Sharma, are aggrieved by the impugned Notices served upon the petitioners by the 3rd Respondent-Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayath, Kanakapura, directing them to vacate their municipal shops in question by 13.12.2017, as the Building in question was in a dilapidated condition and was required to be demolished to bring up another new construction at the same place. The said Notice was issued vide Annexure- D dated 08.12.2017 giving them only a week’s time to evict them and to vacate the shops in question.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners Mr.B.L.Sanjeev has submitted that the only prayer made by the petitioners that some adequate time ought to have been given to the petitioners to see and to make arrangements for alternative accommodation, where they could shift their business from the existing shops.
3. Though, he also made a submission that the Building, in which the petitioners are carrying on their business since 1999 are not in dilapidated condition, but this Court is not inclined to accept such submission, because it is a question of fact and it is the policy matter to be taken by the Respondent-Taluk Panchayath, Kanakapura and therefore, that decision is not required to be interfered with.
4. However, the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner that some adequate time ought to have been given to the petitioners for allowing the petitioners to shift their business to any other alternative accommodation, deserves to be considered.
5. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the Respondents to allow a period of four months from today to allow the petitioners to shift and vacate the shops in question. However, it is made clear that no further time for that purpose shall be granted. It is made clear that the time period is extended subject to payment of rent only up to 30.04.2018 and also for other similarly situated persons in the said Building, if they so express their desire before the Respondent-Taluk Panchayath in writing and thereafter, the Respondents shall be free to proceed further for demolition of the Building in question, after evicting the petitioners, if necessary by using suitable force for the same.
No order as to costs.
Copy of this order be sent to the Respondents forthwith.
Sd/- JUDGE Srl.