MANORAMA S. SHETTY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is the owner of the property and building bearing Nos.863/6 and 588/A, situated at Bhagat Singh road, Subramanya Nagara, Ward No.14 of Turuvekere Town, is before this Court aggrieved of the impugned order dtd. 21/8/2021 at Annexure-A, passed by the Chief Officer of the Town Panchayat, Turuvekere. A notice at Annexure-B dtd. 23/8/2021 is also issued following the impugned order directing the petitioner to remove the construction put up on the property clearing the road by leaving 10.50 meters from the center of the road. In other words, it has been held by the Chief Officer that the petitioner has put up construction almost to the edge of the property and thereby violating the building line.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier too there was such an action sought to be taken at the hands of the respondent-Town Panchayat to widen the road in question. The proposal was to widen the road to 43 feet. However, since there were objections from all the property owners who had their buildings abutting the road in question, in a meeting held between the land owners and the municipal authorities in the presence of the elected representatives, it was decided that the road in question will be maintained at 35 feet. However, it was also requested that all the property owners should ensure that there is clear 35 feet road and if there is any constructions put up beyond the said extent, they should voluntarily remove it.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is sought to be made by the Chief Officer by alleging that the petitioner has encroached upon 8 1/2 feet, having regard to the fact that from the center of the road there should be a clear 10.50 meters and whereas the construction though put up within the sital measurement, nevertheless, the required setback is not left. Learned Counsel would further submit that under similar circumstances, where another property owner i.e., The Town Co-operative Society Ltd., had challenged similar such orders before this Court in W.P.No.31667/2019, the co-ordinate Bench, by order dtd. 19/1/2022 held that the respondent-Town Panchayat cannot hold that the petitioner therein has encroached upon the road, since the admittedly construction was put up within the property belonging to the petitioner. On the other hand, if the Town Panchayat wanted to widen the road, the Panchayat was required to acquire the portion required in terms of the constitutional right provided under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, by following due process of law. Learned Counsel would therefore submit that similar orders are required to be passed in this case also.