MOHD. ABDUL MOIZ Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The top noted writ petition is filed questioning the illegal demolition of the petitioners shop bearing CMC.No.06-07-63 (New) and CMC.No.06-07-64 (New) as per Annexure-E. The petitioners are seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to pay damages and compensation for having illegally demolished the property of the petitioners which is a private property.

(2.) The case of the petitioners before this Court is that the petition premises was originally owned by the father of the petitioner namely, Mohammed Abdul Rauf. The father of the petitioners by way of gift deed dated 23.08.2007 transferred the petition premises in favour of his sons i.e., the present petitioners. The petitioners would contend that pursuant to the registered gift deed, the present petitioners acquired valid right and title over the petition premises and they were in actual possession and enjoyment over the petition premises. The case of the petitioners is that the respondents 4under the guise of road widening have without resorting to Land Acquisition Act have illegally and highhandedly demolished the shop. The petitioners having lost the property on account of highhandedness of the respondents, a representation was submitted to the second respondent Deputy Commissioner as per Annexure-E on 12.11.2007. In the said representation, the petitioners brought to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner that on account of demolition, they have lost their livelihood and also they have become unemployed and hence, requested the second respondent to arrange for rehabilitation by allotting commercial site in Bidar City or in the alternative to pay compensation for having demolished the property. Since there was total inaction on the part of the respondents in considering the representation, the petitioners are before this Court seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to pay 5compensation for having demolished without acquiring the petition premises.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.