Karnataka High Court
Mr Syed Mazhar vs State Of Karnataka on 30 June, 2022
Bench: R. Nataraj
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.24410 OF 2021 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
MR. SYED MAZHAR
S/O. LATE SYED ABDUL GAFOOR
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
RESIDINT AT NEAR BYPASS,
1ST CROSS, NEW MANDIL,
SHIMOGA - 577202.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SIRAJIN BASHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560001.
2. COMMISSIONER
SHIVAMOGGA CITY CORPORATION,
OPPOSITE TO GANDHI PARK,
SHIMOGA - 577 201.
3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
SHIGAMOGGA DISTRICT
SIR M.V ROAD, SAVALNGA ROAD
SHIVMOGGA - 577 201.
4. DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION,
9TH AND 10TH FLOOR
2
SIR. M.V TOWER
DR. B.R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA FOR R1, R3 & R4,
SRI. A.V.GANGADHARAPPA, ADV FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE R2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED
06.09.2021 THE ANNEXURE-B TO MAKE GOOD OF THE
COMPENSATION.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of
mandamus to the respondent No.2, to consider his
representation dated 06.09.2021.
2. The petitioner claims to be the owner of a vacant
site measuring 26 x 70 feet in Sy.No.162/2 block No.24
situate at Mandli Grama, Kasaba Hobli, Shivamogga Taluk,
which he derived in terms of a gift deed on 15.10.2008. He
claimed that respondent No.2, illegally attempted to interfere
with his possession, which compelled him to file
O.S No.163/97 for perpetual injunction. The said suit was
decreed and the respondent No.2, was restrained from
interfering with his possession. Notwithstanding the judgment
and decree passed by the Civil Court, respondent No.2 formed
a road in the property of the petitioner. The petitioner made
several applications claiming compensation which culminated
in a resolution dated 30.05.2020 by which the respondent
No.2, had resolved to pay compensation by entering into an
agreement with the petitioner. The petitioner claims that even
after the said resolution the respondent No.2, has not taken
any steps for paying compensation for the petitioner. The
petitioner therefore filed a representation dated 06.09.2021,
requesting the respondents to pay the compensation, which is
not considered till date. The petitioner is therefore, before this
Court seeking the above reliefs.
3. The learned counsel for respondent No.2, did not
dispute the fact that in terms of the resolution dated
30.05.2020, the respondent No.2 had acknowledged the fact
that the petitioner was the owner of a site measuring 26 x 70
feet in Sy.No.162/2 situated at Mandli Grama, Kasaba Hobli,
Shivamogga Taluk, and that a portion of the said property
was utilized for the formation of the road. The respondent
No.2 also resolved to pay compensation by entering into an
agreement with the petitioner. However, even after two years
the respondent No.2, has not taken any steps to determine
the compensation or enter into an agreement with the
petitioner. This Court tried to nudge the respondent No.2, to
take action by directing the Additional Government Advocate
to file a report about the progress in the matter. However, the
respondent No.2 has not responded and therefore it is
necessary to direct respondent No.2, to take further steps as
per the resolution dated 30.05.2020, and pay the
compensation to the petitioner.
Hence, the writ petition is allowed, the respondent No.2
is directed to take all required steps pursuant to the resolution
dated 30.05.2020, and pay the compensation within a period
of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of
this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PK
