B C PUTTARAJU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner 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 this writ petition for quashing the resolution dated 16.5.2011 and for certain other reliefs.

(2.) THE second respondent has filed its objections opposing the writ petition.

(3.) 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 others v. State of Karnataka and others in W.P. 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: