V.N. LAKSHMIKANTHAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed to declare the action of respondents in the matter of demolition of portion of House No. 160 carved out of land in Sy. No. 181 of Halesorab measuring East to West 9 1/2 ft. and North -South 30 ft. described in the petition schedule as one without jurisdiction and authority of law and forbid the respondents from demolishing the said house without due process of law. Sri S.V. Prakash, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that in response to the notice as at Annexure -G, petitioner submitted the relevant documents and despite such compliance, the respondents are threatening to demolish the Mangalore Tiled roofed house bearing property No. 160 carved out of Sy. No. 181 of Halesorab. Learned counsel submitted that the impugned action being arbitrary and illegal, interference in the matter is warranted. Learned counsel referred to an Order passed on 24.11.2011 in W.P. No. 43779/2011 as at Annexure -K and the Judgment dated 25.08.2004 passed in W.P. No. 142/1998 as at Annexure -M.

(2.) LEARNED Government counsel, on the other hand submitted that Annexure -G is a notice issued to the petitioner, to produce the documents relating to the petition schedule property in his possession, for necessary action. He submitted that, if any relevant documents are produced, the same would be taken into consideration by the authority concerned and the matter would be dealt with in accordance with law.

(3.) UNDISPUTEDLY , the petitioner being not the owner of the property, respondents are justified in issuing the notice as at Annexure -G. If the petitioner were to produce the documents, respondents have to examine the same, in view of the notice as at Annexure -G. Keeping in view the undisputed fact that the petition schedule property does not belong to the petitioner, he being an alleged agreement holder and having not sought specific performance by his vendor, who has not questioned the alleged acts of the respondents, I do not find justification to entertain this writ petition. Writ petition is rejected with no order as to costs. However, it is made clear that, if the petitioner or Smt. Kulusumbi were to produce the relevant records before the authority concerned, the same shall be examined and decision taken without any delay.