U.S. Chandravati Achar and Others vs The State of Karnataka and Others

Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.—Sri Ravi V. Hosamani, the learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to take notice for the respondent No. 1. Sri Ravi Hegde, the learned counsel is directed to take notice for the respondent No. 2. Sri Mrutyunjaya Tata Bangi, the learned counsel is directed to take notice for the respondent No. 3.

The grievance of the petitioners in all these petitions is that the respondent City Municipality, Hosapete has utilized their properties without resorting to the initiation of the proceedings for their acquisition. The buildings standing on either side of the road are being demolished or marked for demolition for the purpose of widening the roads.

Sri Mahantesh C. Kotturshettar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are being deprived of their private properties without following the due process of law. They complain that they have not received any notice in that regard and that they have not received any compensation for utilizing their properties for the stated public purpose.

Sri Mrutyunjay Tata Bangi, the learned counsel for the respondent City Municipality, Hosapete submits that the widening of the roads is pursuant to the master plan. He submits that these petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of the availability of alternative remedy. He submits that the petitioners'' remedy is to file a petition before the Deputy Commissioner invoking Section 82 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (''the said Act'' for short), if they propose to contend that the properties in question are belonging to them. Without prejudice to this submission, he submits that the property in question belong to the City Municipality, Hosapete.

Sri Ravi V. Hosamani, the learned Additional Government Advocate submits that he adopts the submissions made by Sri Mrutyunjay Tata Bangi.

On being asked as to within what time-frame the petitions, anticipated to be filed by the petitioners would be disposed of by the Deputy Commissioner, he submits that they would be disposed of as expeditiously as possible in about two-three months'' time.

The submissions of the learned counsel have received my thoughtful consideration. That the road-widening is a public purpose cannot be disputed at all. But if the road-widening project has to be on the properties belonging to the petitioners, then such properties cannot be summarily occupied and utilized by the Municipality. It is trite that nobody can be deprived of his property without following the due process of law. The question that arises for my consideration is whether the road-widening is taking place using up the property belonging to the City Municipality of Hosapete or belonging to the private owners. They are the disputed questions of facts. In the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is not possible to deliver any finding on such factual controversies. Such disputes cannot be resolved without holding an enquiry. The decision on the claim for the property by or against the Municipal Council can be obtained by raising the dispute before the Deputy Commissioner invoking Section 82 of the said Act. The provisions contained in Section 82(1) and (2) of the said Act are extracted hereinbelow:

Decision of claims to property by or against the municipal council. - (1) In any municipal area to which a survey of lands, other than lands ordinarily used for the purposes of agriculture only, has been or shall be extended under any law for the time being in force, where any property or any right in or over any property is claimed by or on behalf of the municipal council, or by any person as against the municipal council it shall be lawful for the Deputy Commissioner after enquiry, of which due notice has been given to pass an order deciding the claim.

(2) Any suit instituted in any civil court after the expiration of one year from the date of any order passed by the Deputy Commissioner under sub- section (1), or, if one or more appeals have been made against such order within the period of limitation, then from the date of any order passed by the final appellate authority, shall be dismissed (although limitation has not been set up as a defence) if the suit is brought to set aside such order or if the relief claimed is inconsistent with such order provided that the plaintiff has had due notice of such order."

I deem it necessary and just to relegate the aggrieved petitioners to the statutory remedy provided under Section 82 of the said Act. The petitioners are directed to file their claims in support of the ownership of the property, the buildings they have raised thereon, etc. before the Deputy Commissioner within two weeks from today. Similarly, the Hosapete Municipality will also file its claims, if it wants to take the position that the properties in question belong to it and in support of its allegations that the properties are encroached by the private parties. On examining the documentary evidence and after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned, the Deputy Commissioner shall pass the order on the ownership of the property and allied questions.

If the Deputy Commissioner''s order is not acceptable to any party, it is open to him/her/it to challenge the same before the civil court under sub-section 2 of Section 82 of the said Act.

If the Deputy Commissioner returns the finding that a particular property, being used for road-widening purpose, is owned by the Municipality and not by any private party, any future dispossession or demolition may be carried out strictly in accordance with law and after issuing the notice to the occupants of such properties.

In the matters where the Deputy Commissioner returns the finding that any portion of the private land is being used for the road-widening purpose, owners of such land have to be compensated without any loss of time. The respondents shall have two options in the matter. They shall elect one of the two options indicated hereinbelow:

(i) The Government of Karnataka shall immediately resort to the acquisition of lands under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013. All the acquisition proceedings, including the passing of award and disbursement of the compensation, shall be completed within six months from the date of passing of the order by the Deputy Commissioner holding that a particular private property is used up for and in the course of the road-widening.

(ii) If the above course is not resorted to by the Government of Karnataka for whatever reason, then the Deputy Commissioner shall, within one month from the date of the time granted for complying with the above direction, pass an order determining the damages/compensation. If the quantification of the compensation-amount is not acceptable to any of the parties, they shall have the liberty of challenging the same before the competent civil court.

It is further made clear that whether the authorities resort to the route of compulsory acquisition of land or pass the order quantifying the damages/compensation, it shall also be open to the authorities to negotiate with the property-losers by offering alternative property to them in lieu of cash-compensation. It shall also be open to the displaced persons to seek the benefits due under National Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2007 and also under the Schemes such as Ashraya Scheme, etc., in cases where they are applicable.

In passing this order, I am fortified by the Division Bench''s judgement, dated 1.9.2014 passed in W.P. No. 21042/2011 and connected matters.

The Deputy Commissioner shall dispose of the anticipated petitions in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible and in any case within an outer limit of ten weeks from the date of the filing of the anticipated petitions. Further, to safeguard the interests of the petitioners between today, the date of the disposal of these petitions and the date of the disposal of their anticipated petitions before the Deputy Commissioner, I direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the property in question or demolish any structure standing thereon for a period of 12 weeks.

These petitions are accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.