S.P. Shridhar vs The State of Kar.

Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—Petitioner''s father when allotted Site No. 1565/A in Garden Area measuring 9 feet X 60 feet followed by execution of a conveyance deed, Annexure-A, put up construction of a building by securing prior sanction and approval of the then Municipality. It is the allegation of the petitioner that on 2.2.2011, respondents 2 and 3-Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner of Shimoga City Municipality respectively demolished the structure without notice and hence, this petition for a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondents from interfering with the petitioner''s possession over the schedule property and for a writ of mandamus to 2nd respondent to reconstruct the building demolished by considering the representation dated 4.2.2011, Annexure-B. Petition is not opposed by filing statement of objections of the respondents.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire action of respondents 2 and 3 is violative of rule of law and principles of natural justice, calling for interference, to exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Learned Counsel for 2nd respondent-State submits that the Deputy Commissioner did inspect the area and having found that the building was construction over a ''Rajakaluve'' issued a direction to the 3rd respondent-Municipality to demolish the building.

Learned Counsel for 3rd respondent submits that on the oral instructions of the Deputy Commissioner, 3rd respondent demolished the building belonging to the petitioner.

There being no dispute that the petitioner was not extended an opportunity before demolishing the building smacks of violation of rules of law and principles of natural justice. It is rather strange for the 3rd respondent-CMC to state that the site allotted to the petitioner''s father and conveyed to him under the registered sale deed, Annexure-A, later turned out to be in a ''Rajakaluve''. The fact as to whether the site exists on a ''Rajakaluve'' is not supported by material on record except the oral submissions of the Learned Counsel for the respondents. Respondents 2 and 3 custodians of powers have acted contrary to law. Their entire action is vitiated on account of arbitrariness.

The observations of the Apex Court in S.R. Ejaz Vs. The Tamil Nadu Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society Ltd., in the circumstances is apposite:

If such actions by the mighty or powerful are condoned in a democratic country, nobody would be safe nor can the citizens protect their properties. Law frowns upon such conduct. The Court accords legitimacy and legality only to possession taken in due course of law. If such actions are condoned, the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India or the legal rights would be given a go-by either by the authority or by rich and influential persons or by musclemen. Law of jungle will prevail and "might would be right" instead of "right being might".

In Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran Vs. Pure Industrial Cock and Chem. Ltd. and Others, their lordship of the Apex Court has observed thus:

The right to property is now considered to be not only a constitutional right but also a human right. The (French) Declaration of Human and Civic Rights of 1789 enunciates the scope of the right under Article 17 and so does Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 adopted in the United Nations General Assembly Earlier human rights were restricted to the claim of individual''s right to health, right to livelihood, right to shelter and employment, etc., but now human rights have started gaining a multifaceted approach. Now property rights are also incorporated within the definition of human rights xxxxxxxxxxxx, Right to property while ceasing to be a fundamental right would, however, be given express recognition as a legal right, provisions being made that no person shall be deprived of his property save in accordance with law".

Suffice it to state that the illegal actions of respondents 2 and 3 have resulted in deprivation of legal rights to property of the petitioner calling for interference. In the result, this petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to forbear from interfering with the petitioner''s possession of the immovable property in question and directed to put up construction of a building on the site in question, of a measurement, equal to one which was demolished. The Secretary of the Revenue Department to whom the 2nd respondent is answerable and the Secretary of Urban Development to whom the 3rd respondent is answerable are directed to ensure the reconstruction of the building at the cost of Officers who demolished the building and not from the public exchequer. The Officers who had committed the illegality are directed to pay the said cost from out of their salary. The State is directed to record the above observations in the service registers of the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner of the Municipality concerned. If the petitioner has suffered pecuniary loss on account of having to take residence elsewhere is entitled to institute a suit and recover damages from the concerned.