IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.33991/2019 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN:
Syed Fayaz, S/o Syed Hameed, Aged about 55 years, R/at:#9, Nayandahalli Main Road, Near Railway Gate, Nayandahalli, Bengaluru – 560039.
(By Sri.Abdul Rasheed, Advocate) AND:
1. Ministry of Railways, #239, Rail Bhavan, Raisina Road CP, New Delhi – 110001.
2. Estate Officer, South Western Railway, Commercial Branch, Magadi Road, Bengaluru – 560023.
…Petitioner 3. The Commissioner, BBMP, Hudson Circle, Bengaluru – 560002.
(By Sri.Byrareddy.G.S, Advocate for ...Respondents Smt.H.C.Kavitha, Advocate for R1 and R2 Sri.Amit Deshpande, Advocate for R3) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to prohibiting the R-2 and 3 or any of there any sub-ordinate officers or authorized by them from illegally demolishing the petitioner schedule property without the due process of law.
This Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The petitioner had sought for issuance of writ in the nature of prohibition, prohibiting the respondent Nos.2 and 3 from illegally demolishing the petition schedule property without due process of law.
2. Upon notice learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 has filed a memo and enclosed a copy of proceedings at Annexure-R1. The memo reads as under:
MEMO FOR DISMISSAL OF WRIT PETITION “The petitioner in the above petition has sought writ of prohibition prohibiting Respondent No.2 and 3 or their officers from illegally demolishing the schedule property without the due process of law.
However, the petitioner himself, of his own accord, has vacated the petition schedule property which is a Railway land. The communication dated 22/08/2019, addressed to 2nd Respondent is produced herewith as annexure-R-1.
In view of the same, the above petition would not survive for consideration. Hence above may be dismissed as having become information in the interest of justice and equity.”
3. It is stated that the petitioner has removed the illegal construction and dismantled the AC sheet houses.
4. In the light of the said memo and taking note of the documents annexed along with the memo and in the light of the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents and Railway Authority that the petitioner has vacated from the schedule property after dismantling the structures. No further orders are required to be passed.
Accordingly, petition is disposed off subject to the above observations.
Sd/- JUDGE NS