C.I. Ullagaddi and I.C. Bommanahalli vs The State of Karnataka and Others

N.K. Patil, J.—In the instant case, Petitioners have sought for a mandamus, directing the Respondents 1 to 5 to restore the Petitioners'' residential building over its lands in CTS Nos. 1331 to 1333 and CTS Nos. 1488, 1489 and 1346 in Basavana Bagewadi, Bijapur District, forthwith and further sought for a direction, directing the Respondents 1 to 5 to suitably compensate the Petitioners and pay exemplary costs for the damage caused to the Petitioners'' properly, in the interest of justice.

The grievance of these two Petitioners in the instant writ petition is that, the first Petitioner had purchased the property bearing CTS Nos. 1331, 1332 and 1333 under registered sale deeds dated 1st February 1988, 1st February 1988 and 23rd July 1986 respectively and that, the said Petitioner has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same since then. Thereafter, the first Petitioner has obtained the sanctioned plan from the then Town Municipality, now called as Town Panchayath, Basavana Bagewadi on 11th December 1996 and constructed the building as per the plan sanctioned to him by the Office of the predecessor of the fourth Respondent and that, there is neither any encroachment of municipal property nor the construction put up by the said Petitioner is an un-authorized one. Similarly, the second Petitioner after obtaining sanctioned plan dated 7th September 1996, has put up the construction on the premises in question. The further case of second Petitioner is that, he has never encroached the property belonging to the fourth Respondent and that, after completion of the building, both these Petitioners have occupied their respective portions and have been paying necessary taxes assessed before the fourth Respondent and that, they have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same over the past several decades. When things stood thus, to the shock and surprise of the Petitioners, the Respondents 2 to 5 have arbitrarily and indiscriminately demolished the Petitioners'' structures under the guise of widening the road and encroachments alleged to be made by Petitioners, on 26th June 2005 and baking law in their own hands have illegally demolished the structures put up by Petitioners without recourse to due process of law and without following the procedure prescribed under the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules. The alleged demolition carried out by Respondents 1 to 5 under the guise of widening the roads in respect of the residential buildings put up by Petitioners is against the principles of natural justice. If prior notice of the same had been issued to the Petitioners, they would have substantiated their case by producing supporting documents. Therefore, the action of Respondents is in gross violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, being aggrieved by the same, Petitioners herein felt necessitated to present the instant writ petition, seeking appropriate reliefs, as stated supra.

After careful perusal of the principal ground urged by Petitioners in the instant writ petition including the prayers sought for by Petitioners, as stated supra, what emerges is that, it is the specific case of the Petitioners that, after obtaining necessary sanctioned plan from the Authorized Officer of the fourth Respondent on 11th December 1998 and 7th September 1996 respectively, Petitioners have put up construction as per sanctioned plan. It is further case of Petitioners that, neither there is any encroachment of any municipal property nor the construction put up by Petitioners are un-authorized. The Respondents 2 to 5 without following due procedure, taking law in their own hands, under the guise of widening the road, have demolished the permanent structure put up by these Petitioners. Therefore, Petitioners are entitled for restoration of their residential buildings in the lands in question, as referred above. It is significant to note that, Petitioners have categorically stated by taking a ground in the instant writ petition that, after obtaining the sanctioned plan, they have put up the construction and also produced the tentative cost of construction/money spent by them, issued by the Consulting Engineer/Architect. However, Petitioners, without getting the building evaluated from the Engineers from the Public Works Department, having jurisdiction and the Consultation Certificate issued by Government and without submitting any representation /application seeking restoration of the residential buildings on the lands, as sought for by them in the present petition, have straight away rushed before this Court and presented the instant writ petition seeking the reliefs, as stated supra. Such a relief cannot be considered by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court until and unless these Petitioners redress their grievance by submitting their consolidated representation along with authenticated documents to establish that, the construction put up by them was within the boundary sanctioned by the competent authority as per the alleged sale deeds referred by the Petitioners, as stated supra. Except taking a specific ground, Petitioners have not produced any documentary evidence such as sale deed, sanctioned plan, occupancy certificate issued by the competent authority and also as to what is the cost incurred for putting up the construction. Ail these are disputed questions of fact and cannot be decided under the extra ordinary jurisdiction as envisaged under the Constitution of India. Therefore, Petitioners are not entitled to seek such reliefs as sought for in the writ petition. Further, it is pertinent to note that, when this matter has come up for consideration before this Court on 18th January 2008 and 29th February 2008, this Court had specifically observed that, the State Government has not chosen to file its statement of objections in the instant case and having regard to the facts and circumstances that are averred, it is necessary that statement of objections be filed, failing which, the petition averments have to be accepted and appropriate orders be passed. Thereafter, the matter was finally adjourned to 17th March 2008. Even on that day, the Government Advocate had failed to file the statement of objections. Again the matter was adjourned to 11th April 2008, on which date, this Court observed that, despite several opportunity, statement of objections is not fried and as a last chance, statement of objections was directed to be filed the subsequent week. Thereafter, again when the matter was posted on 30th May 2008 and 11th June 2006, no statement of objections were filed by Government. Even today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, the Government has not chosen to file its objections nor has complied with the directions issued by this Court. The conduct of Respondents, particularly Respondents 2 to 5 in not assisting and not furnishing particulars to the counsel representing the Government to enable him to file suitable objections in the matter, the manner in which the entire proceedings is handled by the authorities cannot at all be appreciated by this Court and the same depicts the poor state of affairs in the State Government. It appears the Respondents have handled the proceedings in a very casual manner and taken the matter lightly and not assisted the Government Advocate to defend the case effectively. It is very unfortunate that, such lapses on the part of the Officers are to be placed on record and should be suitably punished by imposing some cost having regard to their conduct and negligence in performing their duties and not assisting the counsel to defend the case. It is astonishing to note that, the Respondents have proceeded to demolish the permanent structure by taking law in their own hands, without recourse to due process of law. It is high time that, such acts of the authorities are curbed at some stage or the other. Therefore, I am of the considered view that, Respondents are liable to be punished by imposing exemplary costs for their negligence, lethargic attitude and not diligent in assisting the counsel, representing the Respondents.

In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the writ petition filed by Petitioners stands disposed of reserving liberty to Petitioners to redress their grievance before the appropriate competent legal forum by submitting detailed consolidated representations, furnishing all the particulars along with authenticated documents, to substantiate their grievances, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

In case such representation is submitted by Petitioners, the jurisdictional competent authority is directed to receive the same, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity to Petitioners and decide the same in strict compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Acts and Rules and dispose of as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of consolidated representation to be filed by Petitioners before the jurisdictional competent authority.

Further, Respondents 2 to 5 herein are directed to pay the cost of Rs. 04,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand Only) at the rate of Rs. 01.000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) personally by each Respondent to the Petitioners 1 and 2 within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and are further directed to file a memo along with acknowledgment for having complied with the directions of this Court, failing which, Petitioners 1 and 2 herein are permitted to recover the said amount, in accordance with law.

With the above observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.