FAZAL AHMED Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri.Ganesh Naik., learned counsel on behalf of Sri.Amareshwar S.Rawoor., for the petitioner and Sri.Veeranagouda Malipatil., learned HCGP for respondents 1, 2 & 4 have appeared in person.

(2.) The brief facts are these: It is stated that the father of the petitioner had purchased the land bearing Sy.No.31 measuring 03 Acres 24 Guntas situated at Badepur Village, Kalaburagi Taluk and District, under the registered sale deed dtd. 29/5/1981 from its previous owner. Subsequent to the death of his father, in a family partition, the land was bifurcated and the land measuring to an extent of 36 Guntas bearing Sy.No.31/2A towards North fell to the share of the petitioner. Since then, he is in possession and enjoyment above-said land. It is stated that there is a pathway used by the public running between the lands in Sy.Nos.31, 31/2A and 31/2B from East to West, which subsequently became 40 feet road. The respondents did not pay compensation to the erstwhile owners. It is averred that the respondents highhandedly demolished the compound wall of the petitioner and other structures of the public to widen the road up to 60 feet and also marked portion of the land to construct drainage. It is said that the respondents without issuing notice to the petitioner, marked the property of the petitioner to construct drainage. Hence, the petitioner preferred Writ Petition before this Court in W.P.No.203471/2014 wherein this Court directed the respondents to consider the objections and documents pertaining to the existence of the road and its width and pass appropriate orders thereon. As per the directions, the petitioner filed objections along with the documents before the Commissioner, Gulbarga City Corporation - third respondent. It is specifically stated that as per the village map, there is no road running in the land of the of the petitioner, but there is only a pathway that has been used by the public which was converted into 40 feet road. It is also said that the compensation is not paid. The Commissioner without considering the objections filed by the petitioner, tried to mark the property to construct the drainage and footpath. Under these circumstances, the petitioner having left with no other alternative and efficacious remedy, has filed this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents have urged several contentions.