Karnataka High Court
The Chief Officer vs Ashwinkumar S/O Veeraji Shaha And ... on 4 February, 2022
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar, K S Hemalekha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
WRIT APPEAL NO.200009/2022 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. The Chief Officer,
Town Municipality, Indi,
Dist: Vijayapura-586 209.
... Appellant
(By Sri. Shivakumar R. Tengli, Advocate)
AND:
1. Sri. Ashwinkumar S/o Veeraji Shaha,
Aged about 51 years, Occ: Business,
Mahaveer Circle, Station road,
Indi, Dist: Vijayapura.
2. Sri. Vasantlal S/o Veeraji Shaha,
Aged about 60 years, Occ: Business,
Mahaveer Circle, Station road,
Indi, Dist: Vijayapura.
3. Sri. Jayantilal S/o Keshavlal Shaha,
Aged about 71 years, Occ: Business,
Mahaveer Circle, Station road,
Indi, Dist: Vijayapura.
4. Sri. Babasaheb S/o Bheemaraya Patil,
Aged about 62 years, Occ: Business,
2
Mahaveer Circle, Station road,
Indi, Dist: Vijayapura.
5. Dr. Ashok S/o Hanamantharaya Patil,
Aged about 60 years, Occ: Business,
Mahaveer Circle, Station road,
Indi, Dist: Vijayapura.
6. Sri. Mahadevappa S/o Gopalappa Kakkalameli,
Aged about 56 years, Occ: Business,
Mahaveer Circle, Station road,
Indi, Dist: Vijayapura.
7. Sri. Mahaveera S/o Chandranath Dhanashetti,
Aged about 53 years, Occ: Business,
Mahaveer Circle, Station road,
Indi, Dist: Vijayapura.
8. Sri. Danayya S/o Siddaramayya Matha,
Aged about 46 years, Occ: Business,
Mahaveer Circle, Station road,
Indi, Dist: Vijayapura.
9. The State of Karnataka
Department of Urban Development,
Represented by its Secretary,
Vikasa Soudha, Bengaluru-560 001.
10. The Deputy Commissioner,
Vijayapura, Dist: Vijayapura-586 101.
11. The Assistant Commissioner,
Sub-Division, Indi,
Dist: Vijayapura-586 209.
... Respondents
(Sri. Venkatesh C. Mallabaddi, Advocate for R1, R2 & R5)
This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the High Court
Act, 1961, praying to set aside the order of the learned Single
Judge dated 23.08.2021 passed in Writ Petition No.203709/2016
3
(LB-RES) and grant such other or further relief or reliefs as this
Court may deems fit, in the circumstances of the case.
This appeal coming on for orders this day,
K.S. Hemalekha J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Though the matter is listed for orders, with the consent
of learned counsel for both the parties, the same is taken up
for final disposal.
2. This intra court appeal under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act is filed by the Chief Officer, Town
Municipality, Indi, Dist. Vijayapura (hereinafter referred to as
the 'Authority' for brevity), assailing the order passed by the
learned Single Judge dated 23.08.2021 in
W.P.No.203709/2016 allowing the petition and directing the
authority to assess and award compensation to the petitioners
for the land used for the purpose of road widening by the
authority.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their ranking in the writ petition.
4. Respondent Nos.1 to 8 herein filed the aforesaid
writ petition, seeking writ of mandamus directing the
respondents to initiate acquisition proceedings in respect of
the shops of the petitioners under Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 and in the alternate sought to consider
their representations dated 02.08.2016 and 03.08.2016 in
accordance with law.
5. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition
with a direction to the authority to assess and award
compensation payable to each of the petitioners in case their
property is used for the purpose of road widening within a
period of three months from the date of the receipt of a
certified copy of the said order and also liberty was reserved
to the petitioners to pursue their remedy against the authority
for unauthorized demolition.
6. The grievance of the petitioners in the writ petition
was that, the authority, without acquiring shops belonging to
the petitioners is attempting to demolish the same and though
the request was made to the authority to acquire their
properties in accordance with law, the said request was not
considered by the authority.
7. A perusal of the order passed by the learned
Single Judge would depict that the respondents are guilty of
taking the law into their hands and have attempted to
demolish the shops belonging to the petitioners. Though there
was an order dated 09.08.2016 restraining the authority from
demolishing the properties without the leave of the Court, the
authority, on 13.02.2019 had demolished the existing building
of the petitioners and utilized the same for the purpose of road
widening without paying any compensation. It is also noticed
by this Court that the learned Single Judge had directed the
Principal Secretary, Department of Urban Development,
Vikasa Soudha, Bengaluru and the Deputy Commissioner,
Vijayapur to appear before the Court. However, the order of
the learned Single Judge depicts that the said order for paying
compensation was not implemented by the authorities.
8. Taking note of the fact that during the pendency
of the writ petition, the authority, without following due
procedure of law demolished the building of the petitioners
and the same has been utilized for widening of the road
without paying any compensation, this Court gave a positive
direction to the authority to assess and award compensation
to the writ petitioners in accordance with law. The learned
Single Judge, however, after noticing the illegal and
highhanded manner in which the authorities have undertaken
the road widening work has not directed any action to be
taken against the authorities. The authority should be happy
that the learned Single Judge has not taken any action for
forcibly demolishing the shop in spite of an direction to the
authority in terms of the order dated 09.08.2016 in the
aforesaid writ petition restraining the authority-respondent
No.4 from demolishing the property belonging to the
petitioners without the leave of the Court. In spite of such an
action on the part of the authorities, the present appeal has
been filed seeking to set aside the order of the learned Single
Judge. The learned Single Judge, considering the relief
sought by the petitioners has rightly held that the shops
belong to the petitioners and the petitioners are entitled for
compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 and directed to assess and award
compensation to the petitioners in the event the property is
used for the purpose of road widening.
9. On a careful perusal of the order of the learned
Single Judge, we are of the considered view that the
authorities have no right to take the law into their hands and
dispossess the petitioners or demolish the building, even if it is
required for the purpose of widening of the road in violation of
the constitutional right of a citizen under Article 300-A of the
Constitution of India.
10. For the reasons stated supra, we are of the
considered view that the order passed by the learned Single
Judge does not call for any interference by this Court and the
present appeal filed by the Town Municipality is devoid of
merits and is liable to be dismissed.
11. Accordingly, we pass the following:
ORDER
i) The writ appeal is dismissed.
ii) The order dated 23.08.2021 passed in
W.P.No.203709/2016 by the learned Single
Judge is hereby affirmed.
iii) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SMP/LG
