Karnataka High Court
Narayan Rao And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 5 June, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3618
WP No. 205224 of 2019
C/W WP No. 204319 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 205224 OF 2019 (LB-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 204319 OF 2019
IN W.P NO 205224 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
1. MOHAMMED IBRAHIM,
S/O MOHAMMED HUSSAIN ANORI,
AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O H.NO. 2/1, MAIN ROAD,
NEAR ARBA MASJID GOGI PETH,
TQ: SHAHAPUR, DIST: YADGIRI-585309.
2. KALINGAPPA S/O PARAPPA
Digitally AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
signed by R/O H.NO. 4/53, GOGIPETH,
RENUKA TQ: SHAHAPUR, DIST: YADGIRI-585309.
Location:
High Court ...PETITIONERS
Of Karnataka
(BY SRI. GANESH SUBHASHCHANDRA KALBURGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT &
PANCHAYAT RAJ, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-01.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3618
WP No. 205224 of 2019
C/W WP No. 204319 of 2019
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
YADGIRI-585201.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
YADGIRI-585201.
4. C.E.O. ZILLA PANCHAYAT
YADGIRI-585201.
5. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
GOGIPETH GRAM PANCHAYAT,
VILLAGE GOGIPETH,
TQ: SHAHAPUR, DIST: YADGIRI-585309.
6. THE PRESIDENT GRAM PANCHAYAT,
GOGIPETH VILLAGE,
TQ: SHAHAPUR, DIST: YADGIRI-585309.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR R. TENGLI, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R5;
R4 AND R6 ARE SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE
APPROPRIATE WRIT MORE SO IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI
AND GRANT THE FOLLOWING RELIEFS QUASH THE NOTICE
DATED 05.09.2019 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.5 TO 6
PETITIONER NO.1 IN FILE NO. UÁæ¥ÀAUÉÆÃ/ªÀÄĪÀÄAUÁæ«AiÉÆà /2019-
20/16 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-C. II)
QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 05.09.2019 ISSUED BY
RESPONDENT NO.5 AND 6 TO PETITIONER NO.2 IN FILE NO.
À UÉÆÃ/ªÀÄĪÀÄAUÁæ«AiÉÆÃ/2019-20/2016 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF
U羴A
WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-C1.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3618
WP No. 205224 of 2019
C/W WP No. 204319 of 2019
IN W. P NO. 204319 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
1. NARAYAN RAO,
S/O GURANNA GHANATE SINCE DECEASED BY LRS.,
A) DATTATREYA S/O LATE NARAYAN RAO GHANATE,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC: TAILOR,
H.NO.2/36, 2/37 & 2-38,
R/O GOGI PETH VILLAGE,
TQ: SHAHAPUR, DIST:YADGIR.
B) MARUTI RAO S/O LATE NARAYAN RAO GHANATE
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: TAILOR,
H.NO.2/36, 2/37 & 2-38,
R/O GOGI PETH VILLAGE,
TQ: SHAHAPUR, DIST: YADGIR.
C) GURANNA S/O LATE NARAYAN RAO GHANATE
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: TAILOR,
R/O H.NO. 2/36, 2/37 & 2-38,
R/O GOGI PETH VILLAGE,
TQ: SHAHAPUR, DIST: YADGIR.
2. NAGESH S/O SAKARAM TUNGE
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: TAILOR,
H.NO.2-16, R/O GOGI PETH VILLAGE,
TQ: SHAHAPUR, DIST: YADGIR.
3. KHAJA MOINUDDIN S/O ABDUL SATTAR
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
H.NO.2/14A, R/O GOGI PETH VILLAGE,
TQ: SHAHAPUR, DIST: YADGIR.
4. ABDUL AZIZ S/O ABDUL HAI SHAKMID
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
H.NO.2/14/B, R/O GOGI PETH VILLAGE,
TQ: SHAHAPUR, DIST: YADGIR.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3618
WP No. 205224 of 2019
C/W WP No. 204319 of 2019
5. DATTATRAYA S/O BHIMANNA GHANATE
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC: RETD. GOVT.
SERVANT, H.NO.4/67, R/O GOGI PETH VILLAGE,
TQ: SHAHAPUR, DIST: YADGIR.
6. NAGESH S/O SHANKAR RAO TUNGE
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: TAILOR,
H.NO.2/35, R/O GOGI PETH VILLAGE,
TQ: SHAHAPUR, DIST: YADGIR.
7. SURESH S/O SHANKAR RAO TUNGE
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
TQ: SHAHAPUR, DIST: YADGIR.
8. RAGHAVENDRA S/O BASAWARAJAPPA SUGHANDHI
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
H.NO.2/42, R/O GOGI PETH VILLAGE,
TQ: SHAHAPUR, DIST: YADGIR.
9. SADHASHIV S/O RAMCHANDRA SUGANDHI
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS.,
A) CHANDRAKANT S/O SADHASHIV SUGANDHI,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
H.NO. 2/22, R/O GOGI PETH VILLAGE,
TQ: SHAHAPUR, DIST: YADGIR.
10. NARSINGH RAO S/O SUGENDRA RAO GADDALE
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
H.NO. 3/81 & 4/62, R/O GOGI PETH VILLAGE,
TQ: SHAHAPUR, DIST: YADGIR.
11. SHANKAR RAO S/O SUGENDRA RAO GADDALE
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS.,
A) MURLIDHAR S/O LATE SHANKAR RAO,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
H.NO. 3/88/B, R/O GOGI PETH VILLAGE,
TQ: SHAHAPUR, DIST: YADGIR.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3618
WP No. 205224 of 2019
C/W WP No. 204319 of 2019
12. BASAWARAJ S/O GURAPPA SAJJAN
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
H.NO.1-96, R/O GOGI PETH VILLAGE,
TQ: SHAHAPUR, DIST: YADGIR.
13. SMT.RADHABI W/O NARAYAN DHOTRE
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD,
H.NO. 4/52, & 11/85, R/O GOGI PETH VILLAGE,
TQ: SHAHAPUR, DIST: YADGIR.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. R. S. SIDHAPURKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND
PANCHAYATRAJ, VIKAS SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
GRAM PANCHAYAT GOGI PETH VILLAGE,
TQ: SHAHAPUR, DIST: YADGIR-585201.
3. THE PRESIDENT GRAM PANCHAYAT,
GOGI PETH VILLAGE,
TQ: SHAHAPUR, DIST: YADGIR-585201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR R. TENGLI, AGA FOR R1;
SRI ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE
FOR R2 AND R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A
WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE
NOTICES VIDE NO. UÁæ¥A À UÉÆÃ/ªÀÄĪÀÄAUÁæ«AiÉÆÃ2019-20/16 DATED-
05.09.2019 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C1 TO C9, VIDE NO.
À UÉÆÃ/ªÀÄĪÀÄAUÁæ«AiÉÆÃ2019-20/13 DATED-21.08.2019 AT ANNEXUE-
U羴A
C-10 AND VIDE NO. U羴A
À UÉÆÃ/ªÀÄĪÀÄAUÁæ«AiÉÆÃ2019-20/16 DATED-
05.09.2019 ANNEXURE-C11 TO C13, RESPECTIVELY, ISSUED
BY THE RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3 HEREIN.
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3618
WP No. 205224 of 2019
C/W WP No. 204319 of 2019
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners in both these petitions have challenged
the notices issued by the respondent No.5 calling upon them to
demolish the portion of their houses, failing which the
respondent No.5 would take steps to remove the construction
by using heavy earth moving equipments.
2. The petitioners claim that they are the owners of
certain properties lying within the panchayat area administered
by the respondent No.5. The petitioners claim that they are
residing in the houses constructed long time ago. They claimed
that a road ran abutting their properties and was utilized by the
villagers of Gogi Peth. The respondent Nos.5 and 6 without
following the due process of law, issued a notice dated
05.09.2019 stating that the said road would be widened to 20
feet from the centre on either side and directed the petitioners
to demolish the construction on their own, failing which they
would remove the construction by using heavy earth moving
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3618
equipments. The petitioners therefore allege that the
respondent Nos.5 and 6 are acting in violation of the law and
are attempting to deprive the petitioners of their valuable
properties without following the due process of law. The
learned counsel for the petitioners in both these petitions
reiterated the aforesaid contentions and claimed that if the
respondent Nos.5 and 6 desires to widen the road, they have to
do so only in accordance with law and not by use of force. In
support of their contentions, they relied upon the judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of Kolkata Municipal Corporation
& Another vs Bimal Kumar Shah and Others, reported in
2024 SCC OnLine SC 968, and contended that compliance
with due process of law would meet the requirement of law
under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent
Nos.5 and 6 submitted that the initiative to widen the road was
not taken by the respondent Nos.5 and 6 but was at the
request of the residents of the village. He submitted that many
residents of the village had voluntary agreed to give up their
respective properties for the proposed widening. He submits
that none of the owners had demanded compensation for giving
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3618
up their respective properties. He placed on record certain
letters of consent given by many residents of the village and
contends that the petitioner Nos.3, 4 and 8 had given such
consent and therefore they are not entitled to claim any
compensation. He submits that the respondent Nos.5 and 6
have already developed the road and due to the interim order
granted in these petitions, the road is not widen adjacent to the
houses of the petitioners. He contends that if the petitioners
are given the benefit of claiming compensation that would open
a pandora's box and that all the residents of the panchayat
would demand compensation which would bleed the respondent
No.5. He therefore prays that the petitioners filed by the
petitions be dismissed as the road is widened for their own
benefit.
4. A perusal of the notice issued by the respondent
No.5 shows the autocratic manner in which the respondent
No.5 has called upon the petitioners to remove portion of their
building abutting the road for the proposed widening. The
respondent No.5 has directed petitioners to remove the
constructions on their own to an extent of 20 feet from the
centre of the road by or before 04.09.2019, failing which an
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3618
agency namely Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development
Limited, Sub-Division, Shahapur would use the heavy earth
moving equipments to remove the construction. As rightly
contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the action
of respondent No.5 in calling upon the petitioners to remove
the construction at their own expenses and give up the land
free of cost for the proposed widening is arbitrary, highhanded
and autocratic. This was definitely not the due process of law
that the respondent No.5 was expected to follow. If a citizen is
to be deprived of his property, it is incumbent upon the
respondent No.5 to pay compensation for the area of land that
is sought to be utilized for the proposed widening.
5. This Court has time and again re-iterated that
Article 300-A is not only a constitutional right but also a human
right and person such as and petitioners cannot be deprived of
their properties without they being suitably compensated in
accordance with law. Therefore, the impugned notices issued
by the respondent No.5 calling upon the petitioners to
voluntarily demolish the construction and to hand over 20 feet
of land from the centre of the road, deserves to be interfered
with.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3618
6. In that view of the matter, these petitions are
allowed. The respondent No.5 is directed to follow the due
process of law before trying to take over the land belonging to
the petitioners. It is made clear that until the respondent No.5
complies with the above, there shall be no demolition of the
houses belonging to the petitioners.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SMP
CT:SI
