JODHARAM Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the petitioner is that his property is being used up without acquiring it and without giving the compensation thereof. It is his case that the Hospet City Corporation is utilizing his land for the purpose of widening the roads.

(2.) Sri Mahabaleshwar Hasinal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that nobody can be deprived of his private property without following the due process of law.

(3.) Sri Mrutyunjay Tata Bangi, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Hospete City Corporation (hereinafter called 'the Corporation') submits that the Comprehensive Development Plan shows that the property in question is earmarked for the road -widening. He submits that the large number of occupants on either side of the road have already vacated their properties to enable the Corporation to widen the roads. He also submits that some of the owners of the properties in question have not come before the Court; on the other hand some of the petitions are filed by the lessees/tenants/unauthorised occupants. He submits that if the petitioner is found to be the owner of the property in question and if he is inclined to receive the transferable development rights, the Corporation would be anxious to sort out the issues with him.