- 1 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12493
WP No. 103539 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
ST
DATED THIS THE 31 DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
WRIT PETITION NO. 103539 OF 2024 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
BEERAPPA S/O. PARASAPPA DOLLI,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. KANNOLLI, TQ: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587330.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GIRISH A. YADAWAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE GRAM PANCHAYAT, KANNOLLI,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PDO,
KANNOLLI, TQ: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587330.
2. THE POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR,
SAVALAGI RURAL POLICE STATION,
SALAVALAGI, TQ: JAMKHANDI,
GIRIJA A DIST: BAGALKOT-587330.
BYAHATTI
…RESPONDENTS
Location: HIGH
COURT OF (BY SRI. PRASHANT S. KADADEVAR, ADV. FOR R1;
KARANTAKA
DHARWAD
SRI. ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R2)
BENCH
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS
DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NOT DEMOLISH THE SHEDS PUT UP
BY THE PETITIONER IN PROPERTY BEARING NO.12 OF KANNOLLI
VILLAGE IN JAMKHANDI TALUKA WITHOUT FOLLOWING DUE
PROCESS OF LAW AND NOT TO DISPOSSESS THE PETITIONER FROM
THE SAID PREMISES, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
- 2 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12493
WP No. 103539 of 2024
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner
came in possession of the open space and put up a temporary
shed and he also paid the tax to respondent No.1 and the
petitioner put up a pakka shed with tin roof and continued to be
in possession from 2002 and that on 23.03.2024. When the
petitioner was in settled possession of the property and put up
a shed abutting the existing shed and the respondents came
along with men and JCB and threatened to demolish the shed
put up by the petitioner. The request of the petitioner not to
take high handed action went in vain and thereafter
respondents forced the petitioner to submit in writing that he
will immediately vacate the premises. Under immense
pressure, the petitioner gave a letter in writing stating that he
will vacate the premises as soon as possible and thereafter
inserted the date in the said letter and have not given a copy of
the same to the petitioner and respondents are making effort to
- 3 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12493
WP No. 103539 of 2024
demolish the shed put up by the petitioner and hence, filed the
present petition.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would submit that the tax has been collected by respondent
No.1 in terms of Annexures-A, B and C and he has been in
settled possession and also produced the photographs at
Annexures-C, C.1 and C.2 and so also Annexures-D, D.1 and
D.2 which clearly discloses that they came along with JCB and
also submits that in view of the pressure and threat of
demolition Annexure-E letter is given for undertaking and the
same has been pleaded in the petition and the petitioner may
be permitted to give a representation to the respondents and a
direction may be given to the respondents to consider the said
representation.
Per contra
4. , learned counsel for the respondents
would submit that no such representation is given earlier and
now question of giving fresh representation does not arise and
apart from that learned counsel also contended that in terms of
Annexure-A undertaking was given and now he cannot seek for
any such direction and also the construction made by the
petitioner is an illegal construction and not having any right and
- 4 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12493
WP No. 103539 of 2024
hence, there cannot be any protection order in favour of the
petitioner and petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. The learned counsel also would submit that before
going to the spot with JCB, notices are given on 02.01.2024,
06.01.2024 and 08.02.2024 and these notices are suppressed
by filing the writ petition and they have not stated anything
about the same. Only memo was filed on 26.06.2024 before
the Court and interim order was obtained by filing those memo
and Court also granted the relief saying that in view of the
materials entitled for some protection till the next date of
hearing and pass the interim order and when the petitioner has
suppressed the fact of issuance of notice, and in spite of notice
he did not vacate the premises, went along with JCB to clear
the illegal construction and in spite of undertaking was given
that going to clear within five days, not cleared the same, and
filed the present petition and obtained interim order and hence,
the very petition itself is not maintainable.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and
the memos given by the petitioner along with notices were also
very clear that notices are given to the petitioner on different
- 5 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12493
WP No. 103539 of 2024
occasions i.e., on 02.01.2024, 06.01.2024 and 08.02.2024 no
reply was given and when the respondents went with the JCB
to remove the illegal construction made by the petitioner, they
also given an undertaking in terms of Annexure-E and also
petitioner not placed any material before the Court claiming
any right in respect of this property in which he had put up the
construction, and only relies upon Annexures-A, B and
photographs.
7. The very prayer sought in the petition is that to
remove the same only with due process of Law and when there
is no any permission is given to put up construction, when an
unauthorized construction is made and question of invoking due
process of law also does not arise, and tax paid receipt will not
confer any right in favour of the petitioner as contended by the
petitioner and when such undertaking was given to vacate the
same, and instead of vacating the same, had approached this
Court and obtained an interim order and when such notices are
given before going to remove the same on 02.01.2024,
06.01.2024 and 08.02.2024, the petitioner has not responded
to the same and when such being the factual aspects, the
illegal construction made by the petitioner cannot be given any
- 6 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12493
WP No. 103539 of 2024
such protection and hence, I do not find any ground made out
by the petitioner to grant any relief as sought in the petition by
issuing any mandamus to remove the illegal construction to
remove the same under due process of law and hence, there is
no merit in the petition. In view of the discussions made above,
the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SSP
CT-MCK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13