AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Abdul Nazeer, J.—The petitions contends that he is the owner of the property described in the writ petition. It is further contended that the City Municipal Council (for short ''CMC''), Doddaballapur, had passed a resolution on 19.1.2009 for widening of the Kongadiappa Main Road, Ganigarapete Road, Kote road, Taluk Office road, Market road, Aa.na. Krishnarao road, Kitturu Rani Chennamma road and Kanakadasa road. However, the said resolution was not implemented. The CMC again passed a resolution on 16.5.2011 resolving to widen four roads, namely, Kongadiappa Main Road, Market Road, Aa. Na. Krishnarao Road and D. Cross Road. The property of the Petitioner is situated on the side of one of these roads. In order to widen the roads, the officials of the CMC had made marks on the building of the Petitioner identifying the extent to be demolished and notice has also been served on the Petitioner. Therefore, the Petitioner has filed tins writ petition for quashing the said notice and for certain other reliefs.
Learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has filed objections in similar writ petition in W.P. No. 18414/2011. He adopts the same in this writ petition as well.
Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner would contend that the Petitioner is the owner of the properly in question. The second Respondent has not acquired the said property nor has it taken possession of the same in a process known to law. If the CMC demolishes the building of the Petitioner in the process of widening of the road, he will be put to untold hardship and loss.
On the other hand, Sri S. Mahesh, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submits that the roads in question are required to be widened in public interest. The roads in question are very narrow and it has become very difficult for the movement of vehicular traffic in those roads.
From the averments made in the petition, it is evident that the Petitioner claims to be the owner in possession of the property in question. It is not in dispute that the CMC has not acquired the property in a process known to law. The Respondents cannot demolish the building and take possession of the land in question for the purpose howsoever laudable it may be without due process of law. This Court has considered a similar question in Uttamchand and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. in W.P. Nos. 1104 to 1110/2005 & CONNECTED MATTERS disposed of on 5.4.2005. In the said case, this Court has issued the following directions to the Respondents therein:
(1) Writ petitions are allowed.
(2) Respondents are hereby directed not to demolish the residential, commercial establishments, shops or other buildings of these Petitioners and persons who are similarly placed which are situated on either side of Indira Gandhi road. Mahatma Gandhi road and Market road in Chikkamagalur Town.
(3) Liberty is reserved to the Respondents to initiate appropriate action against the Petitioners and others in accordance with the provisions of Sections 175, 179 and 187 of the Act.
(4) In the event the Respondents intend acquiring the land belonging to these Petitioners or others for widening the road, in order to bring it in conformity with the width of the road as mentioned in the CDP they shall issue notice to the Petitioners and purchase/acquire the land, belonging to them and only on such acquisition they shall widen the road.
(5) If the Respondents are intending to demolish the projections and buildings beyond the regular line of the public street the same shall be done alter complying with the mandatory requirements of Sections 179 and 181.
(6) If the Respondents intend demolishing any constructions on the ground that the constructions are wholly unauthorised or the constructions are contrary to the sanctioned plan and license or contrary to the Act, Rules framed therein, a notice to be issued u/s 187 in which they shall clearly specify the ground on which they intend taking action to enable the owners of the land/property to offer their explanation.
(7) As is clear from the statutory provisions, the owners of the land be given a reasonable time, the minimum time being three days. Having regard to the fact that these Petitioners and others who are similarly placed are owning these properties for decades, in the circumstances of these it is reasonable to expect the Respondents to grant thirty days time before they take any punitive action by way of demolition after passing of a final order so that if the Petitioners are aggrieved they can agitate against those orders in an appropriate forum.
(8) Notice issued u/s 187 by the Respondents are hereby quashed reserving liberty to issue fresh notice as stated above.
(9) In case the Petitioners and others who are similarly placed complain that already portion of the buildings have been demolished, liberty is reserved to those Petitioners to approach competent Civil Court claiming damages on proof of the demolition being conducted by the Respondents in the light of the fact that the Respondents stoutly deny any such demolition.
(10) In the demolished portion as contended by the Petitioners and others who are similarly placed if any further action is taken by way of laying drainage, laying pipes, the same shall be done only after notice to the Petitioners and compliance of the above directions.
The point in issue in this writ petition is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision. Therefore, this writ petition is also allowed in similar terms. No costs.