NANDI HOUSING PVT LTD. Vs. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, a land developing company is complaining before the Writ Court against the notice dtd. 10/3/2021 issued by the 1st Respondent at Annexure-A whereby, he is directed to remove an unauthorizedly constructed wall that denies easy ingress & egress to the public. The operative portion of the same reads as under: <IMG>JUDGEMENT_496_LAWS(KAR)5_2023_1.jpg</IMG>

(2.) Learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Vivek Reddy appearing for the Petitioner sought to falter the impugned notice on the basis of original & amended Writ Petition contending that: the said notice is issued unilaterally, violates principles of natural justice; it is issued on the basis of a false complaint lodged by the newly added 4th Respondent-Company; there are no residential houses in the area nor the members of public can make use of the road in question; 'Petitioner has not obstructed any persons and also not constructed any compound wall/grabbed government land in an illegal manner...'; the 4th Respondent-Company has an alternate road for ingress & egress to it's adjoining layout which is now being developed; the impugned notice is violative of Petitioner's Fundamental Rights under Articles 19, 21 & 300A of the Constitution of India and therefore, the Relinquishment Deed executed by the Petitioner being contrary to the said Articles, cannot be held against it.

(3.) After service of notice, the Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 are represented by their Sr. Panel Counsel and the 4th Respondent-Company is represented by it's Advocate. They did not much oppose the amendment to the Writ Petition and therefore, leave to amend as prayed for, has been accorded. Petitioner has also filed an amended Petition in advance, which is officially a part of the record. The 4th Respondent has filed the Statement of Objections resisting the Writ Petition. Learned BDA Panel Counsel and the advocate appearing for the Respondent-Company made submission in justification of the impugned notice; all contentions of the Petitioner, they submit, are liable to be rejected in view of the registered Relinquishment Deed, executed by the Petitioner himself; the argument of acquisition of property sans compensation, has no place; Petitioner's predecessor-in-title in his very application for conversion of the land has admitted existence of the public road on which now the wall is built by the petitioner; there are other records too in support of this; Petitioner is high handedly doing all these things and therefore, Writ Court should not show any indulgence to him.