M.N. LINGARAJU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus directing the respondents -authority not to demolish the existing structure on the petitioner's property for the purpose of formation or widening of Road SH -57 without following the acquisition proceedings. The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of the property bearing Assessment No. 120 of Hullahalli Village, Nanjangud Taluk. The property is claimed to be the ancestral property of the petitioner which was purchased by the grandfather under a registered sale deed dated 24 -1 -1919. The further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is in enjoyment of the property which was purchased by his grandfather. The respondents without authority have sought to demolish a portion of the house in which the petitioner is in occupation. In that view, the petitioner was before this Court in W.P. No. 45662 of 2012 which was disposed of by the order dated 1 -2 -2013 (Annexure -D) to the petition.

(2.) THIS Court, on taking note of the contention put forth therein had observed that the rule of law entitles the petitioner to notice, if his property is put to use for widening the road. In that view, the petitioner contends that he is entitled to the due legal procedure before the property belonging to the petitioner is demolished for the purpose of widening the road. Since, no action was taken after the disposal of the petition, the petitioner is also stated to have got issued notice to the respondents and despite the same, without any procedure being followed there was an attempt once over again to demolish the property of the petitioner as certain markings were done and demolitions were made in the adjacent property which has prompted the petitioner to file this petition.

(3.) THE learned Government Advocate has filed a memo along with the sketch and the mahazar relating to such survey that was conducted. In that view, the sketch is referred to and it is contended that as per the measurement, it is noticed that the petitioner has encroached the road as indicated in 'Orange' colour to the said sketch which at one end indicates 8 ft. 6 inches and at the other end it is 4 ft. It is therefore contended that when the petitioner has encroached the public property, the question of acquiring the property does not arise and the encroachment should yield to the public interest when the road is sought to be widened.