Karnataka High Court
Jairam S/O. Kantayya Shetty vs The Hubli Dharwad Municipal ... on 6 June, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7556
WP No. 105501 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 105501 OF 2014 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. JAIRAM S/O. KANTAYYA SHETTY
AGED: 60 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: HOTEL KANAKA,
SATTUR CROSS, P.B.ROAD, DHARWAD.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.S.R.HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE HUBLI DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
NAVANAGAR, HUBLI-560025,
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
2. THE HUBLI DHARWAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY, NAVANAGAR, HUBLI-560025,
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
HUBLI DHARWAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR HUBLI.
Digitally signed by 4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
Location: HIGH COURT
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
M.S.BUILDING, VIDHANA VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.R.H.ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI.M.A.HULYAL, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO, DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS
TO FORBEAR FROM DISPOSSESSING HIM FROM THE PROPERTY
MEASURING 4 1/2 GUNTAS IN EXTENT AND HAS BEEN ASSIGNED BY
HUBLI DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BEARING ITS BLOCK
NO.109/2+3+4/2. THE TOTAL EXTENT OF THE LAND COMPRISED IN
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7556
WP No. 105501 of 2014
THE SAID BLOCK IS 18 GUNTAS EXCEPT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW
AND BY THEIR FOLLOWING THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN THAT
REGARD PARTICULARLY IN THE WAKE OF THE DECREE DATED
17.07.2008 FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION THAT THE COURT OF THE
LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DIVN), DHARWAD, HAS
PASSED IN HIS FAVOUR IN O.S.NO.383/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE
SAID COURT VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned petition is filed seeking for following
reliefs:
i. issue a writ in the nature of a mandamus
directing the respondents to forbear from
dispossessing the petitioner from the property
measuring 4½ guntas in extent and has been
assigned by the Hubli Dharwad Municipal
Corporation bearing its Block No.109/2+3+4/2.
The total extent of the land comprised in the said
Block is 18 guntas except in accordance with law
and by their following the due process of law in
that regard particularly in the wake of the decree
dated 17.7.2008 for permanent injunction that the
Court of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Divn),
Dharwad, has passed in his favour in O.S.
No.383/2003 on the file of the Prl.Civil Judge
(Sr.Dn) Dharwad said court vide Annexure-A.
and
ii. pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit in the circumstances of the case,
including the award of the costs of this petition, in
the interest of justice and equity.
2) The petitioner is asserting that he is running a hotel in
block No.109/2+3+4/2. The total extent of the land comprised
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7556
in the said block is 18 guntas out of which 4 ½ guntas is
assigned Municipal No.167. The petition premises originally
belonged to one Sri.Tammanagouda Patil. The petitioner
contends that the original owner has leased the petition
premises in the year 1996 for a period of 30 years.
3) Placing reliance on the judgment rendered in O.S
No.383/2003, the petitioner contends that, the bare suit for
injunction instituted against the 1st respondent-Corporation is
decreed by the judgment and decree dated 17.07.2008 and
the Corporation is restrained from dispossessing the petitioner
forcibly and illegally.
4) The captioned petition is filed on an apprehension
that the respondents No.3 and 4 are threatening to dispossess
petitioner and demolish the existing super structure belonging
to the petitioner.
5) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned counsel appearing for respondents.
6) This Court vide order dated 19.11.2014 has
restrained the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner
and this is in force since 2014. The petitioner contends that
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7556
though the petition premises was acquired and final
notification was issued on 13.07.1992, the respondents have
failed to execute the scheme and therefore, the scheme has
lapsed and neither the acquiring authority nor the beneficiary
have locus to dispossess the petitioner.
7) The prayer that is culled out supra clearly indicates
that the petitioner by way of a mandamus is seeking directions
against all the respondents not to dispossess petitioner
forcibly. The petitioner has a benefit of a decree for perpetual
injunction against the respondents No.1 and 2. If there is a
threat by Acquiring Authority or State, it is open for petitioner
to seek appropriate relief before the competent civil Court.
This Court under Section 226 jurisdiction cannot issue
prohibitory injunction since dispute relating to possession has
to be adjudicated before the competent civil Court.
8) The petitioner who is a lessee and the owner of the
petition Land have not questioned the acquisition under
Section 27 of the Act indicating that the acquisition has lapsed.
Since the prayer sought in the captioned petition relates only
to a protection of possessory rights, the petitioner has to be
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7556
relegated to a civil Court to seek redressal of grievances. For
the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
1. Writ Petition stands disposed off
relegating petitioner to avail appropriate
remedy before the competent civil Court.
2. The petitioner has a benefit of a decree
for perpetual injunction against the
respondents No.1 and 2 in O.S No.383/2003.
The respondents No.3 and 4 along with
respondents No.1 and 2 are restrained by
this Court from dispossessing vide order
dated 19.11.2014. This order is in force
since 2014. Therefore, the interim order
granted by this Court shall be in force for a
period of four months from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PMP
