IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION Nos.31161-31165/2018 & 31418/2018 (LA RES) BETWEEN 1. SURYANARAYANA SETTY S/O LATE H S SRINIVASA SETTY AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, PROPRIETOR M/S SRINIVASA STORES, VASAVI LODGE BUILDING, B M ROAD, SAKLESHPURA TOWN, SAKLESHPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 134.
2. H S RADHAKRISHNA S/O LATE H S SRINIVASA SETTY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, PROPRIETOR SRI RANGANATHA STORES, B M ROAD, SAKLESHPURA TOWN, SAKLESHPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 134.
3. S N MANJUNATH SETTY S/O LATE S A NAGARAJA SETTY AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, PROPRIETOR SRI RAJALAKSHMI TRADERS, B M ROAD, SAKLESHPURA TOWN, SAKLESHPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 134.
4. S V HARISH S/O LATE S A VASANNA SETTY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/O B M ROAD, SAKLESHPURA TOWN, SAKLESHPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 134.
5. PARASMAL S/O LATE MISRIMAL AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS PROPRIETOR MANIK CHAND JAIN B M ROAD, SAKLESHPURA TOWN, SAKLESHPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573134.
6. MANMAL S/O LATE MISRIMAL AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS PROPRIETOR ARAVIND TEXTILES, B M ROAD, SAKLESHPURA TOWN, SAKLESHPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573134. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI S V PRAKASH, ADV.) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, K R CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN-573201.
3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (C & B), K R CIRLCE, BENGALURU-560001.
4. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS K R CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001.
5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SAKLESHPURA SUBDIVISION, SAKLESHPURA, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201.
6. SAKLESHPURA TOWN MUNICIPALITY SAKLESHPURA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER, SAKLESHPURA-573 134, HASSAN DISTRICT.
7. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/ LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, SAKLESHPURA SUBDIVISION, SAKLESHPURA-573134, HASSAN DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B J ESWARAPPA, AGA FOR R1 TO R5, SRI A.RAVISHANKAR, ADV. FOR R6.) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE CONTEMPLATED ACTION OF THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO DEMOLISH THE PORTION OF THE BUILDINGS EXISTING ON THE SCHEDULE PORPERTIES DESCRIBED IN THIS WRIT PETITION AND TAKING OVER THE SAME FOR THE PURPOSE OF WIDENING THE WIDTH OF BENGALURU-MANGALURU ROAD AT SAKLESHPURA TOWN, HASSAN DISTRICT WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE PROCEDURES ESTABLISHED BY LAW AS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ‘HEARING – INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION’, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER The learned counsel for the petitioners asserts that in substance the fact matrix of these petitions matches with that in cognate writ petition Nos.30738-30757/2018 and other connected matters subject to one reservation that in the said writ petitions the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner was directed to accomplish a particular task, whereas, the jurisdictional authority in these writ petitions would be the Highway Authority as defined under the Karnataka Highways Act, 1964.
2. The learned Addl. Govt. Advocate Sri.B.J. Eshwarappa appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5, and the learned panel counsel appearing for the 6th respondent/Town Municipal Council do not much dispute the version of the petitioners’ side. However, they reserve liberty to ascertain the factuals for deciding the matchability.
3. In the cognate writ petitions mentioned above, that have been disposed off by this court vide judgment dated 14.01.2019, the relevant part of operative portion, at paragraph No.14 reads as under:-
“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 the above circumstances, these writ petitions succeed in part; the relief granted to the petitioners in the aforesaid cognate writ petitions, is extended to these petitioners also subject to the reservation that the jurisdictional authority shall take a decision, in terms of the judgment mentioned above.
Costs made easy.
Sd/- JUDGE Chs* CT-HR