H A KRISHNA NAIK Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EVEN though this matter is listed for orders, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, I have taken up the matter for final disposal.

(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the validity of notice dated 25-11-2002 issud by the 2nd respondent - Assistant Executive engineer, P. W. D. Sub Division, Moodigere, chickmagalur District, whereby the 2nd respondent had called upon the petitioner to vacate the premises pertaining to Building assessment No. 43/22 of Keremandala panchayath, Keregrama Village. The petitioner claims to be a tenant residing and carrying on his hotel business having taken on lease the premises from one Sri manjunath who is said to be the owner of the premises.

(3.) IT is the case of the petitioner, that the said Manjunatha had been given permission to construct residential as well as commercial premises by the Panchayath and accordingly had constructed the same and after the said construction was over, with permission from the Panchayath, it had been given to the petitioner who has been residing since 1999 and that he has been running the hotel after obtaining necessary licence from the Panchayath. The said licence, it appears, has been issued by the panchayath in the year 2000 and has been renewed from time to time. The petitioner also contended that he has invested large amount of money for running his business in the premises and at this stage, he has been issued with the notice from the 2nd respondent on the premise that the building is built on the property belonging to PWD inasmuch as it is built within a distance of 40 mtrs. from the middle of the road which is a taluk road. The petitioner has also averred that there was an earlier litigation between the owner of the land and the Forest Department and that the Forest Department had taken action to vacate the owner of the land from the premises. The said owner had approached this Court by filing w. P. No. 40372/2002 and Forest Department had then retracted from the threatened action conceding that the property was not within the jurisdiction of the Forest Department and had apprised the P. W. D. may take action for eviction against the occupants of the building, which had been put up unauthorisedly on the road. It is the further case of the petitioner; that no other notice had been served before asking the petitioner to vacate the premises, that no action had been taken to vacate the petitioner from the building; that the respondents have been arbitrarily issuing notices to a few, while there are several other constructions located at the same distance from the middle of the road, and that no action has been taken and such selective action initiated discriminates against the petitioner. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioner that the road is neither a national highway nor a State highway, nor there should be a gap up to a distance of 40 mts. from the middle of the road and that there are several constructions which are in existence at a distance of 20 mtrs, in respect of whom no action has been taken by the respondents and as such has sought for quashing of the notice itself.