IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU R DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT W. P. Nos. 30738-30757/2018 C/W W.P. Nos. 31279-80/2018, 31546-48/2018, 32285-92/2018 & 32345-46/2018, 32293/2018, 31064-
88/2018 & 31181-83/2018, 35708-09/2018, 30962-
65/2018, 31443-46/2018, 31581-85/2018 (LA-RES) IN W.P. Nos. 30738-30757/2018:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI S P LINGARAJU S/O SRI SHOP PUTTANNA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 956/866, B M ROAD, SAKLESHPUR - 573134 2. SRI SHOP PUTTANNA S/O LATE SHOP SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED) NO 958/868, B M ROAD, SAKLESHPUR - 573134 3. SRI S RAJAJINKANTH S/O LATE S SATHYANARAYANA SETTY AGED 54 YEARS R K ASSOCIATES II FLOOR, BENAKAS COURT, ABOVE SYNDICATE BANK, B M RAOD, SAKLESHPUR - 573134 4. SMT C K LALITHA W/O LATE K S SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED 3881/3552, B M ROAD, SAKLESHPUR - 573134 5. SMT B N SHASHI REKHA W/O SRI B SHANTHARAJ AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED) 850/938, B M ROAD SAKLESHPUR - 573134 6. SRI S J VINAY S/O LATE S K JAYADEV AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 3877/3528, B M ROAD SAKLESHPUR - 573134 7. SRI S A ARUN KUMAR S/O LATE S N ASHWATHA NARAYANA SETTY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 3755/3415, B M ROAD, SAKLESHPUR - 573134 8. SRI SYED MAQBOOL S/O LATE SYED DASTHAGIR AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 3893/3543, B M ROAD, SAKLESHPUR - 573134 9. SRI STEEVAN D SOUZA S/O L M D SOUZA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 3833/A, 3487/A, B M ROAD, SAKLESHPUR - 573134 10. SRI S V SOMANATH S/O LATE S S VISHWESWARAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS JAYALAKSHMI COFFEE WORKS 3833/B, B M ROAD, SAKLESHPUR - 573134 11. SRI SYED ZAKIR PASHA S/O LATE S K SYED GHOUSE, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 810/729, B M ROAD, SAKLESHPUR - 573134 12. SRI SHAKEEL UR REHAMAN S/O B M MOHAM MED SHAFEE, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 937/A/A1/849/A, B M ROAD, SAKLESHPUR – 573134 13. SMT IMTIAZ SULTANA W/OS RI B M JAFFAR SADIQ, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED) LAKSHMIPURAM EXTENSION RAILWAY STATION ROAD, SAKLESHPUR - 573134 14. SRI SALMAN KHALID S/O B M JAFFAR SADIQ AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS LAKSHMIPURAM EXTENSION, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, SAKLESHPUR - 573134 15. SRI SUHAIL AHMED S/O B M MOHAMMAD SHAFI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 857/774, B M ROAD, SAKLESHPUR - 573134 16. SMT USHA KIRAN PRASAD W/O SRI H B NAGENDRA PRASAD AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS 818/737, B M ROAD, SAKLESHPUR - 573134 17. SRI K S MURULI S/O LATE SRINIVASA RAO AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 3892/3542, B M ROAD, SAKLESHPUR - 573134 18. SRI S V SURESH S/O LATE S R VENKATAKRISHNAYYA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED 806/727, B M ROAD, SAKLESHPUR - 573134 19. SRI B M MOHAMMAD S/O LATE B MOSABBA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 937/E/849/E, B M ROAD, SAKLESHPUR - 573134 20. SMT H M MAYURI W/O SRI B S SUPREETH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS 816/735, B M ROAD, SAKLESHPUR – 573134 (BY SRI. G R PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MULTISTORIED BUILDINGS BANGALORE - 560001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN - 573201 3. THE ASST COMMISSIONER & LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER SAKLESHPUR SUB DIVISION SAKLESHPUR - 573134 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SAKLESHPUR SUB DIVISION HASSAN - 573201 5. THE CHIEF OFFICER SAKLESHPUR TOWN MUNICIPALITY SAKLESHPUR - 573134 (BY SRI. DILDAR SHIRALLI, HCGP FOR R1-4;
… PETITIONERS … RESPONDENTS SRI. A RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO FOLLOW THE LAND ACQUISITION PROCEDURE IN CASE OF ANY ROAD WIDENING BY ANY OF THEM IN B.M.ROAD, SAKLESHPUR AND ETC., IN W.P. Nos. 31279-80/2018:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. HEMA S. BALAJI S/O. LATE H. S. SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS, VASAVI COMPFART, B.M. ROAD, SAKLESHPURA, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 134.
2. SRI. SAKALESHPURA P. GANESH S/O. SRI. S. PUTTAPPA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS,J. P. COMPLEX, B.M. ROAD, SAKLESHPURA, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 134.
(BY SRI. PRAKASH M PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201.
2. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SAKALESHPUR SUB-DIVISION, SAKALESHPUR, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 134.
…PETITIONERS 3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.
4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.
5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SAKLESHPUR SUB-DIVISION, SAKALESHPUR, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 134.
6. THE TOWN MUNICIPALITY SAKALESHPUR, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 134, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHEIF OFFICER.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DILDAR SHIRALLI, HCGP FOR R1-4; SRI. A RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16.7.2018 VIDE ANENX-G MADE BY R-2; AND DRIECT THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO DISPOSSESS THE PETITIONER FROM THE LAND IN QUESTION WITHOUT ACQUISITION OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTIES OF THE PETITIONERS;
IN W.P. Nos.31546-48/2018:
BETWEEN:
1. B V MALLESH S/O LATE B S VEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, 2. B V SHIVA KUMAR S/O LATE B S VEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 3. B V PREM RAJ S/O LATE B S VEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT BYAKARAVALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SAKALESHPUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573134 (BY SRI. A P PULAKESHI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN, HASSAN DISTRICT-573201 2. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SAKALESHPUR SUB-DIVISION, SAKALESHPUR, HASSAN DISTRICT-573134 3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA ... PETITIONERS REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-01 4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARYM, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU -01 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SAKLESHPUR SUB-DIVISION, SAKALESHPUR, HASSAN DISTRICT-573134 6. THE TOWN MUNICIPALITY SAKALESHPUR, HASSAN DISTRICT-573134 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER (BY SRI. DILDAR SHIRALLI, HCGP FOR R1-R5; SRI. A RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R6) ... RESPONDENTS THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO DISPOSSESS THE PETITIONER FROM THE LAND IN QUESTION WITHOUT ACQUISITION OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTIES OF THE PETITIONERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW;
IN W.P. Nos. 32285-92/2018 & 32345-46/2018:
BETWEEN:
1. H S DHARMARAJ S/O SHIVALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS BRAHMANARA BEEDHI-(HOLE BEEDHI) SAKLESHPURA TOWN-573134 HASSAN DISTRICT 2. B SAMUEL SINCE DEAD BY LRS STEPHEN S/O SAMUEL AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS B M ROAD, SAKLESHPUR-573134 HASSAN DISTRICT 3. DR VISHWANATH S D S/O DEVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS SRI LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA TOWERS B M ROAD, SAKLESHPUR-573134 HASSAN DISTRICT 4. ALAM PASHA S/O ABDUL RASHEED AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS D.NO.479/3, B M ROAD SAKLESHWPUR-573134 HASSAN DISTRICT 5. DILDAR BANU W/O AYUB PASHA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS KASABA HOBLI SHO SHIDDEGOWDA SCHOOL B M ROAD SAKLESHPURA-573134 HASSAN DISTRICT 6. U P MALLAPPA S/O LATE U D PUTTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED D.NO.479/4, B M ROAD SAKLESHPUR-573134 HASSAN DISTRICT 7. S AALAPPA SHETTY S/O LATE S A SUBARAYA SETTY AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED NO.479/4, B M ROAD SAKLESHPUR-573134 HASSAN DISTRICT 8. DHANMAL NAHAR S/O LATE JEEVARAJ AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS D.NO.2, B M ROAD SAKLESHPUR-573134 HASAN DISTRICT 9. H S SUBBA SETTY S/O LATE H V SRIRANGA SETTY AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED B M ROAD SAKLESHPUR-573134 HASSAN DISTRICT 10. C Y LAKSHMINARAYANA SETTY S/O YELLAPPA SETTY SINCE DEAD REP BY SON S L SUBRAYA SETTY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS SHOP NO.4 SRI SAKALESHWARA SWAMY TEMPLE BUILDING B M ROAD, SAKALESHPUR-573134 HASSAN DISTRICT ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. H PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING BANGALORE-560001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN-573201 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER & LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER SAKLESHPUR SUB DIVISION SAKLESHPUR-573134 4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SAKLESHPUR SUB DIVISION HASSAN-573201 5. CHIEF OFFICER SAKLESHPUR TOWN MUNICIPALITY SAKLESHPUR-573134 HASSAN DISTRICT (BY SRI. DILDAR SHIRALLI, HCGP FOR R1-R4; SRI. A RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5) ... RESPONDENTS THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO FOLLOW THE LAND ACQUISTIION PROCEDURE IN CASE ON ANY ROAD WIDENING BY ANY OF THEM IN B.M.ROAD, [BANGALORE-MANGALORE ROAD]SAKLESPUR, HASSAN DISTRICT AND ETC.
IN W.P. No. 32293/2018:
BETWEEN:
SMT GOWRAMMA W/O CHANNAPPA SHETTY OCC HOUSE WIFE, B M ROAD, SAKLESHPURA HASSAN DISTRICT-573134 (BY SRI.PRAKASH M PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN, HASSAN-DISTRICT-573201 2. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SAKALESHPUR SUB DIVISION, SAKALESHPUR HASSAN DISTRICT-573134 3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA ... PETITIONER REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, M.S.BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-01 4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS M.S.BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-01 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SAKLESHPUR SUB DIVISION , SAKALESHPUR HASSAN DISTRICT 573134 6. THE TOWN MUNICIPALITY SAKALESHPUR, HASSAN DISTRICT 573134 REPRESENTED BY IS CHIEF OFFICER ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DILDAR SHIRALLI,HCGP FOR R1-R5;
SRI. RAVI SHANKAR A, ADVOCATE FOR R6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO DISPOSSESS THE PETITIONER FROM THE LAND IN QUESTION WITHOUT ACQUISITION OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTIES OF THE PETITIONERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW; AND ETC IN W.P. Nos. 31064-88/2018 & 31181-83/2018:
BETWEEN:
1. S M PRAVEEN KUMAR S/O LATE S P MANGILAL AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, C/O S P OSWAL & CO., B M ROAD, SAKSLEHPURA-573 134 HASSAN DISTRICT 2. S M ANANDRAJ S/O LATE S P MANGILAL AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, C/O ANAND JEWELERS B M ROAD, SAKLESHPUR-573 134 HASSAN DISTRICT 3. S V GYANCHAND JAIN S/O LATE S P VASTIMAL AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, C/O SURAJ JEWELERS B M ROAD, SAKLESHPUR -573 134 HASSAN DISTRICT 4. SHANTHI BAI W/O RIKHABCHAND AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, C/O GANESH JEWELERS B M ROAD, SAKLESHPURA-573 134 HASSAN DISTRICT 5. S N SUNIL KUMAR S/O LATE NANDARAM AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, B M ROAD, SAKLESHPUR -573 134 HASSAN DISTRICT 6. MAHENDRA KUMAR S/O LATE VIRDICHAND AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, B M ROAD, SAKLESHPUR-573 134 HASSAN DISTRICT 7. M DINESH KUMAR S/O LATE MOHANLAL AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, B M ROAD, SAKLESHPUR-573 134 HASSAN DISTRICT 8. MANGAL KUMAR S/O LATE AMRUTHLAL AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, B M ROAD, SAKLESHPUR -573 134 HASSAN DISTRICT 9. MANGAL KUMAR S/O LATE AMRUTHLAL AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, B M ROAD, SAKLESHPUR-573 134 HASSAN DISTRICT 10. SANTOSH KUMAR S/O LATE MOHANLAL AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, B M ROAD, SAKLESHPUR-573 134 HASSAN DISTRICT 11. MANGILAL S/O LATE DALICHAND AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, B M ROAD, SAKLESHPUR-573 134 HASSAN DISTRICT 12. KAMALA BAI W/O LATE T VASTIMAL AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, B M ROAD, SAKLESHPUR-573 134 HASSAN DISTRICT 13. S N SATYANARAYANA GUPTA S/O LATE A M NAGARAJ SHETTY AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, B M ROAD, SAKLESHPUR-573 134 HASSAN DISTRICT 14. SAYAR BAI W/O LATE SOHANRAJ SINCE DEAD REP BY HER SON VIJAYAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, C/O VARDHAMAN ELECTRONICS B M ROAD, SAKLESHPUR-573 134 HASSAN DISTRICT 15. M MADHAVACHAR S/O LATE SHANKARACHARYA SINCE DEAD REP BY HER SON HARISHACHAR AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, B M ROAD, SAKLESHPUR-573 134 HASSAN DISTRICT 16. S PRAKASHCHAND S/O LATE SUKANRAJ AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS B M ROAD, SAKLESHPUR -573 134 HASSAN DISTRICT 17. M RAJMAL S/O MANGILALA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, B M ROAD, SAKLESHPUR-573 134 HASSAN DISTRICT 18. TEJRAJ S/O LATE MEGHRAJ AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, B M ROAD, SAKLESHPUR -573 134 HASSAN DISTRICT 19. DULRAJ AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, B M ROAD, SAKLESHPUR-573 134 HASSAN DISTRICT 20. SURESHKUMAR AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, B M ROAD, SAKLESHPUR-573 134 HASSAN DISTRICT 21. PRUTHVI RAJ AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, B M ROAD, SAKLESHPUR-573 134 HASSAN DISTRICT 22. SUNILKUMAR AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, B M ROAD, SAKLESHPUR-573 134 HASSAN DISTRICT 23. ABDUL KHADAR S/O LATE PUTHUBA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, B M ROAD, SAKLESHPUR-573 134 HASSAN DISTRICT 24. BALA KRISHNA S/O L CHOTA LAL AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, B M ROAD, JAIHIND BUILDING, SAKLESHPUR-573 134 HASSAN DISTRICT 25. S M RAJASHEKAR SETTY S/O LATE S MANJAPPA SETTY AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, B M ROAD, NEAR POST OFFICE, SAKLESHPURA HASSAN DISTRICT 26. S R RUKMINI RAJ W/O S M RAJSHEKAR AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, B M ROAD, NEAR POST OFFICE SAKLESHPURA HASSAN DISTRICT 27. S P MANJUNATH SETTY S/O LATE S PUTTAPPA SETTY AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, B M ROAD, SAKLESHPURA HASSAN DISTRICT 28. K C JALAJAKSHI W/O LATE H K THAMME GOWDA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, KARIGOWDA BUILDING, B M ROAD, SAKLESHPUR-573 134 HASSAN DISTRICT (BY SRI.H PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY ) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ... PETITIONERS M S BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN-573 201 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER & LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER SAKLESHPUR SUB DIVISION SAKLESHPUR-573 134 4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SAKLESHPUR SUB DIVISION HASSAN -573 201 5. CHIEF OFFICER SAKLESHPUR TOWN MUNICIPALITY SAKLESHPUR-573 134 HASSAN DISTRICT ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.DILDAR SHIRALLI, HCGP FOR R1-R4; SRI. A RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO FOLLOW THE LAND ACQUISITION PROCEDURE IN CASE ON ANY ROAD WIDENING BY ANY OF THEM IN B.M.ROAD (BANGALORE-MANGALORE ROAD) SAKLESPUR, HASSAN DISTRICT;
IN W.P. Nos. 35708-09/2018:
BETWEEN:
1. A V PARVATHI W/O LATE A.J.VIRUPAKSHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFITS OF NOT CLAIMED SRI DURGA SWEETS AND BAKERY B.M.ROAD, SAKLESHPURA HASSAN DISTRICT.
2. SUPRIYA A.S. D/O SHIVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS NO.20, B.M.ROAD, SAKLESHPUR HASSAN DISTRICT.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI.H PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN-573 201 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER & LAND ACQUSITION OFFICER, SAKLESHPUR SUB DIVISION, SAKLESHPUR-573 134 4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SAKLESHPUR SUB DIVISION, HASSAN-573 201 5. CHIEF OFFICER SAKLESHPUR TOWN MUNICIPALITY, SAKLESHPUR-573 134 HASSAN DISTRICT.
(BY SRI. DILDAR SHIRALLI, HCGP FOR R1-R4; SRI. A RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5) ... RESPONDENTS THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO FOLLOW THE LAND ACQUISITION PROCEDURE IN CASE ON ANY ROAD WIDENING BY ANY OF THEM IN B.M.ROAD (BANGALORE-MANGALORE ROAD) SAKLESPUR, HASSAN DISTRICT;
IN W.P. Nos. 30962-65/2018:
BETWEEN:
1. A N KARTHIK S/O LATE M P NAGESH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 964/873/A, B M ROAD, SAKLESHPUR - 573 134.
2. B C JAYANTH S/O LATE B M CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED) B.M.ROAD, SAKLESHPUR - 573 134.
3. SRI BHAKTHA ANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE B M ROAD, NEAR HEMAVATHY RIVER SAKLESHPUR - 573 134 REP BY ITS CONVENOR SRI S.P. LINGARAJU 4. SRI S.P.LINGARAJU S/O SRI SHOP0 PUTTANNA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 956/866, B.M.ROAD, SAKLESHPUR - 573 134.
(BY SRI.G R PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MULTISTORIED BUILDINGS BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN - 573 201.
3. THE ASST COMMISSIONER & LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER SAKLESHPUR SUB-DIVISION SAKLESHPUR - 573 134 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SAKLESHPUR SUB-DIVISION, HASSAN - 573 201.
5. THE CHIEF OFFICER SAKLESHPUR TOWN MUNICIPALITY SAKLESHPUR - 573 134.
(BY SRI. DILDAR SHIRALLI, HCGP FOR R1-R5; SRI. RAVISHANKAR A, ADVOCATE FOR R5) ... PETITIONERS ... RESPONDENTS THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO FOLLOW THE LAND ACQUISITION PROCEDURE IN CASE OF ANY ROAD WIDENING BY ANY OF THEM IN B.M. ROAD, SAKLESHPUR AND ETC., IN W.P. Nos. 31443-46/2018:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI M P HARISH S/O LATE M P PUTTASWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 949/859, 931/843 B M ROAD SAKLESHPUR-573134 2. SRI M P SRIDHAR S/O LATE M P PUTTASWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 949/859, 931/843 B M ROAD SAKLESHPUR-573134 3. SMT H B SUBBAMMA W/O LATE BYREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS, (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED) DEVALADAKERE-573134 SAKLESHPUR TALUK 4. SRI K B CHANDRU S/O K R BASAVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 3756/3415 B M ROAD SAKLESHPUR-573134 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI.G R PRAKASH, ADVOCATE ) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MULTISTORIED BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN-573201 3. THE ASST COMMISSIONER & LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER SAKLESHPUR SUB DIVISION SAKLESHPUR-573134 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SAKLESHPUR SUB DIVISION HASSAN-573201 5. THE CHIEF OFFICER SAKLESHPUR TOWN MUNICIPALITY SAKLESHPUR-573134 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DILDAR SHIRALLI, HCGP FOR R1-R4; SRI. A RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO FOLLOW THE LAND ACQUISITION PROCEDURE IN CASE OF ANY ROAD WIDENING BY ANY OF THEM IN B.M. ROAD, SAKLESHPUR.
IN W.P. Nos. 31581-85/2018:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. SHOP SHASHIKUMAR S/O LATE SHOP SHIVAPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED) JANAKERE VILLAGE, ARAKERE POST, SAKLESHPUR -573 134 2. SMT S H NALINI W/O LATE SHOP SHIVASHANKAR AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, MALLIKARJUNA NAGAR 5TH CROSS, SAKLESHPUR TALUK 3. SRI VASEEM PASHA S/O SRI MUSTHAQ AHAMAD AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 952/862, B M ROAD, SAKLESHPUR -573 134 4. SMT ASIA BEGUM W/O LATE B F MUKTHIR AHMED AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED) 3767/3424, B M ROAD, SAKLESHPUR-573 134 5. SRI SHOHIB AHMED S/O LATE SHAKEEL AHMED AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, 3763/B3431/B, B M ROAD, SAKLESHPUR-573 134 (BY SRI.G R PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MULTISTORIED BUILDINGS BANGALORE-560001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN-573 201 3. THE ASST COMMISSIONER & LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER SAKLESHPUR SUB-DIVISION SAKLESHPUR -573 134 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SAKLESHPUR SUB-DIVISION HASSAN-573 201 5. THE CHIEF OFFICER SAKLESHPUR TOWN MUNICIPALITY SAKLESHPUR-573 134 (BY SRI. DILDAR SHIRALLI, HCGP FOR R1-R4; SRI. A RAVISHNAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5) ... PETITIONERS ... RESPONDENTS THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO FOLLOW THE LAND ACQUISITION PROCEDURE IN CASE OF ANY ROAD WIDENING BY ANY OF THEM IN B.M. ROAD, SAKLESHPUR AND ETC., THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER All the petitioners claim to be absolute owners in lawful possession of the petition properties/buildings that are situate on the lines adjoining Bengaluru-Mangalore Road which is notified to be the National Highway No.48 that passes through the Municipal limits of Sakleshpur Town. They are before this Court grieving against the alleged highhanded act of the respondents in demolishing or threatening to demolish the portions of their buildings on the arrogated assumption that they are built on the public roads by way of encroachment.
2. The official respondents having entered appearance have filed a Statement of Objections in a few of these matters with a request that the same be adopted for the rest. The respondent-Town Municipality has also filed the Statement of Objections. These respondents by their pleadings have taken up various contentions resisting the petition prayers. This Court in most of these matters had granted some protection by way of interim relief. All these matters involving substantially similar questions of law and fact have been taken up for final hearing with consent and are being disposed off by this common judgment.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contend that they have acquired title to the petition properties by virtue of registered conveyances; they have been residing or running their businesses in the structures which have been long ago put up; some of these structures apparently have vintage value as can be ascertained from their photographs produced as Annexures to the writ petitions, their authenticity not being in question; that being so the respondent-Assistant Commissioner hand in glove with the officials of the respondent-Town Municipality have been making all out efforts to demolish the buildings in question in the guise of widening of the subject road.
4. The learned counsel Mr. Pavan Chandra Shetty appearing for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.32285-32292/2018, W.P.Nos.35708-35709/2018 and connected matters vehemently submits that the respondent-Assistant Commissioner hand in glove with the powers that be, has highhandedly demolished the front portion of the petitioners buildings as are shown in the undisputed photographs at Annexures, that too by employing JCB vehicles brushing aside their humble request for not taking the law into his hands and sans determination of alleged encroachment by due process of law. Therefore the learned counsel seeks the injunctive relief against threat of demolition and compensatory relief for the damage done in gross violation of law.
5. The learned High Court Government Pleader Shri Dildar Shiralli appearing for the State and the official respondents so also the learned panel counsel Shri Ravi Shankar appearing for the Town Municipality vehemently contend that the structures in question are apparently the encroachments; the Government Order bearing No. PWD 43 CRM 75 dated 18.02.1976, in terms of the Indian Road Congress Statistical Values specifically prescribes that from the middle of the National Highway upto 40 metres on its either side no structures should be put up; the Government Circular bearing No.PWD 46 CNH 88 dated 09.05.1988 inter alia mentions the dimensions of amongst others the National Highways and the prohibitory limits for construction of structures on either side of the same.
6. Both the HCGP and the panel counsel further submit that from the boundary line of the roads, no structures could have been put upto six metres on either side as per the statutory norms; not only these norms are violated by the petitioners but even encroachment has been made on the sides of the National Highway itself, resulting into its being enormously squeezed; this constriction of the National Highway has been the cause of several vehicular accidents, many of them fatal; during a short period of about three and a half years preceding the filing of the petitions, 190 accidents have occurred and 16 deaths of innocent citizens have happened; the town having historicity has in-flow of travelers; the pedestrians also have been facing a lot of difficulty inasmuch as the pathway on either side of the road have been encroached by unauthorized constructions. Therefore the petitioners are liable to be non-suited. They also plead for dismissal of the petitions on the ground that disputed questions of facts are involved and that the petitioners have the alternate and efficacious remedy by way of a properly constituted suit.
7. I have heard all the learned counsel for the petitioners; I have also heard the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State and other official respondents, and the learned panel counsel for the Town Municipality. I have perused the petition papers and the Statement of Objections.
8. The contention of the petitioners that they are the owners of the petition structures and that the same have been put up in accordance with law several decades ago on their private properties is difficult to be decided in writ jurisdiction as rightly contended by the opposing counsel. But, there is prima facie material in the form of registered conveyances, Municipal Records and the Tax Receipts to show that there are certain structures over which the petitioners claim ownership; going by the pleadings of the respondents, it becomes very clear that the official respondents are posing threat of demolition on the ground that these structures are built on the public road after encroachment. In fact, the jugular vein of the case of the respondents is the encroachment.
9. The contention of Shri Pavan Chandra Shetty that the subject structures in his petitions i.e., W.P.Nos.32285- 32292/2018, W.P.Nos.35708-35709/2018 and connected matters, have been damaged extensively by the highhanded act of respondent-Assistant Commissioner by employing the JCB vehicles, appears to be true going by the undisputed photographs produced as Annexures. This contention gains credence inasmuch as the respondent-State and its officials have not taken up the contention in the Statement of Objections by way of denial. Whatever that be, the matter requires deeper investigation for ascertaining the truth and for holding the officials responsible for the same liable.
10. The contention of the petitioners that their buildings are their abodes wherein they reside or carry on their business/occupation and that the demolition and the threat of demolition is violative of their Fundamental Right under Articles 19(1)(g), 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India, also gains acceptance, in the absence of the highhanded act of the answering respondents. Right to personal liberty will be wounded if the very residing of the citizen in his house is disturbed; the demolition or its threat impinges citizens’ right to carry on their business/occupation as guaranteed under Article 19; if petitioners structures are sought to be taken away forcibly on the ground of encroachment, may violate Article 300A, in the absence of the right of the Government is established by due procedure.
11. Section 82 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1976 provides for the procedure and the machinery for removal of encroachment of public properties within the Municipal limits . In almost similar set of facts a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 03.082012 in W.P.Nos.26662-666/2012 (GM-RES) has observed that the encroachments cannot be removed except by the due process of law; another Co-ordinate Bench in its latest judgment dated 11.01.2018 in W.P.Nos.32351-32354/2017 (LB-RES) and other connected matters having interpreted the provisions of Section 82 of the Act at paragraphs 9 and 10 has observed as under:
“ 9. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioners may file their representations before the concerned Deputy Commissioner, Hassan within a period of two weeks from today with their relevant evidence of title and boundary of such title to the properties constructed by them and after giving an appropriate opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as to the respondent-TMC, the Deputy Commissioner, Hassan is directed to decide the questions in accordance with the aforesaid Section 82 of the Act.
10. Till such adjudication is made, the respondent- TMC will not use any force for widening the road upon undertaking the demolition of the properties of the petitioners. However, it is made clear that if the Deputy Commissioner finds that the petitioners had encroached the public lands and had raised the construction in question on the public lands, it goes without saying that not only the petitioners’ properties to that extent would be liable for demolition, but the Deputy Commissioner may also impose and recover suitable damages to be recovered from the petitioners or other encroachers of public land. It is expected of the respondent No. 2 – Deputy commissioner, Hassan to undertake this adjudication process expeditiously and conclude the same within a period of two months from today, in view of the fact that the widening of road is a public project of larger public importance and because of such adjudication process, such project may not be unnecessarily and unduly further delayed”
12. Yet another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 03.03.2011 has considered the grievance of litigants from Berur town in W.P.No.36313/2010 (LA-RES) identical set of circumstances and the relief has been granted, observing “… If at all, the Respondent Authorities require the schedule properties for the purpose of widening of State Highway passing through Berur town, then the same have to be acquired in accordance with law. It is made clear that, if the petitioners have encroached upon the road, then, in that case also, the Respondent Authorities would have to remove the encroachments in accordance with law. Therefore it is necessary to observe that either for acquiring the properties belonging to the petitioners for the purpose of widening of road for State Highway or for removal of encroachment, if any, by the petitioners, the Respondent Authorities would have to act strictly in accordance with law and cannot straightaway initiate any action of demolition”. In fact in W.P.Nos.28704-714/2010 (LA-RES) arising from the Town Municipality of Sakleshpur in identical set of facts, yet another Bench has rendered the judgment dated 21.06.2011 granting relief to the litigants therein in terms of the said observations mentioned above. There is no reason to deviate from this beaten path of law.
13. In the aforesaid writ petitions in which Shri Pavan Chandra Shetty has argued, there is prima facie material to form an opinion that some of the properties of a few petitioners therein have been damaged by employing JCB machines. Apparently it cannot be by anyone than by the respondent-State officials. This is nothing but a high handedness on the part of officials of the State who are supposed to uphold the Rule of Law. In more or less a similar fact matrix, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.7687/2011 (LB-RES) has rendered the judgment on 21.09.2012 at paragraph 10 whereof reads as under:
“10. In the result, this petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to forbear from interfering with the petitioner’s possession of the immovable property in question and directed to put up construction of a building on the site in question, of a measurement, equal to one which was demolished. The Secretary of the Revenue Department to whom the 2nd respondent is answerable and the Secretary of Urban Development to whom the 3rd respondent is answerable are directed to ensure the reconstruction of the building at the cost of Officers who demolished the building and not from the public exchequer. The Officers who had committed the illegality are directed to pay the said cost from out of their salary. The State is directed to record the above observations in the service registers of the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner of the Municipality concerned. If the petitioner has suffered pecuniary loss on account of having to take residence elsewhere is entitled to institute a suit and receive damages from the concerned.”
14. In the above circumstances, these writ petitions succeed; a Writ of Mandamus issues to the respondents restraining them from interfering with petition properties/buildings/structures till after the issue of encroachment by the petitioners is decided by the respondent-Deputy Commissioner in accordance with Section 82 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1986 or any other law applicable to the facts of the case.
In whichever of the above writ petitions, the damage to or demolition of petition buildings have allegedly taken place, the owners thereof are given liberty to make a representation seeking determination of the extent of damage and for the grant of compensatory relief, which shall be considered by the respondent-Deputy Commissioner within an outer limit of three months. This is in addition to whatever relief the aggrieved can seek before the Civil Court.
After the enquiry directed above, the guilty officials responsible for damage/demolition shall be identified and the amount payable to the petitioners shall be recovered from the said officials and further an adverse entry shall be made in the Service Registers of the said officials.
The Compliance Report as to the determination of the damage, the payment of compensation to the aggrieved petitioners, its recovery from the guilty officials and the making of the adverse entry in their Service Registers shall be filed within four months reckoned from this day.
Sd/- JUDGE Snb/