K G NINGAPPA, Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners assert to be the owners of the petition schedule A1, A2, B1 and B2 immovable properties, allegedly located along side Old P.B.Road (Beuru- Sammassgi State Highway No.76) in Harihara city. Alleging that the State and its Public Works Department without taking recourse to Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 to acquire the land and the building and pay compensation, illegally and unauthorizedly demolished portions of buildings and widened the road. It is the further allegation of the petitioners that respondents orally directed them to pull down the constructions, which when refused, highhandedly, without notice and an opportunity of hearing, in the wee hours of 8.11.2014 demolished portions of the buildings as noticeable from the positive photographs. It is the further assertion of the petitioners that such demolition is contrary to the decision of the Division Bench rendered in W.P.143/1998 and "other cognate matters". According to the petitioners, the Division Bench is said to have issued directions to authorities not to demolish the buildings of private owners situated along side the road unless steps are taken to acquire the same and pay compensation. Since the impugned action is alleged to be in violation of Article 300-A r/w Article 21 of the Constitution, as also, binding precedents, respondents having no right to take over private property unless acquired under due process of law, the alleged action is characterized as arbitrary, hence the following reliefs:

(2.) Petitions are not opposed by filing statement of objections of the respondents.

(3.) Sri.B.K.Manjunath, learned counsel for the 8th respondent-City Municipal Corporation submits on instructions that the properties removed for widening the road do not belong to or owned by petitioners, while learned Govt. Advocate for the Public Works Department submits on instructions that all records relating to demolition of the buildings are in the custody of the 8th respondent-City Municipal Council. In response to the submission, learned counsel for 8th respondent submits that there are no such records since the demolition was carried out by the Public Works Department for widening the road, which, incidentally fell within the territorial jurisdiction of the 8th respondent.