* . I " R." I... PATIL."ADv.I
§
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANCtAI.;Qf_§i§'
DATED THIS THE 19% DAY OF FEBRL1A'I§Y,V 261 O
PRESEISI5 »
THE HONBLE MR.
THE HON'BIJE MR. v.I';UST1c'E"AV;I?I;.§IVé§I«I.LIGO§A1.A'VGOWDA
WA. NO. 19%
BETWEE1\E:-- '
MANOHAR-...VSI/.cs.;., LA'I*E..pAIa.AS"MA;L,
AGED'
R/ONo.124;":2ND'FL0.0R__ _ _
KHARI ROAD. BA'NGALO_REg58.
NOW R}'.AT:NO;7_', SW ACROSS,
GOKULA *;2i§ID VSTA-GIL, BEWANARAPALYA,
YE-S'E{\7VANTHPUR§ BANGALORE-22.
' :APPELLANT
_.§'§J
SAAIGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE.
.. J..O.ROAD. BANGALOIE 2,
R/'BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
THE DY. COMMISSIONER (WEST)
BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE.
WILLESWARAM. BANGALORE.
3. V. SHANKAR.
AGE BY MAJOR,
THE DY. COMMISSIONER (WEST?
BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE.
/K
6.
K)
MALLESWARAM, BANGALORE.
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER.
WARD N028, DIVN. NO.25,
BANGALORE MAHANAGARA:.PAL_I_KE.,
CHICKPET RANGE. TULASITF!O'I?A,'* '
BANGALORE53 _
PRABHAKAR,
AGE MAJOR, _
EXECUTIVE ENC}_IN.E;EF1', '
WARD No.28. DIV/"N. NO.,25; 1
BANGALORE MAHANAGARA P.s\.:;1:{E.n_
CHICKPET'~RANGE',"TULASI5fHO'1?A, '
BANGALORE'-;53.=:__
Assn?
WARD~.1.\EO.1;2;8, O;vN.'-NO._25.
MAHANAGARA' PALIKE.
CHI.C-KI?ET--RAl\IGE}."TULASITHOTA.
WARD. INCH;ARGE;~.-
; 'WARE N028, OWN. N025,
" EAreOALORE...M_RHANAGARA PALIKE,
CHICKEET RANGE, TULASITHOTA.
" _ EA3«JORLORE~53_
A SHASH'E=EHAR.
AGE, MAJOR.
S' ,.WARD No.28, OWN. NO25.
GALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
CHICKPET RANGE, TULASITHOTA.
EANGALORE53.
"E9.
10.
CHEKPET POLICE STATION.
R/BY INSPECTOR,
CHIKPET, BANGALORE.
SR1. ANANTHU
fly
S/O. LATE SHEKAR.
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/O NO. 1016, 1ST MAIN ROAD.
4TH BLOCK. RAJAJINAGAR,
BANGALORE.
SMT. MUNIRATPINA BAI', .4
W/O LATE
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,"
SRLM. R. _ _ 1- .,
W /O LATE RAJENDRASAIQ j.
AGED ABOUT 25 YEA.RS.;'' :
SRLM. ;I*<;';A,;":T£1}:g, 2;
D /O__LATaE iRA«_JENDRASA_;-- if; .
AGED A£3QU"f"'-3.1
N'O,f13 TO"'i'3":ARE ALL
=.R/O. NO;'f55_, TST' F_LO.§)R, jA_M.LAN1«:,
BAS ETTYP BAN{.}AJ__.ORE.
SMT': M." R. SH';TAIV€ALA.
' "W./O Sr-:.ANKm-2'
" AGED ABC)UT...35 YEARS.
I1'/'O No.12, PANCHALA,
I " _ "SIDDAPPA GALLI, 4TH CROSS.
-EsA§:GAL..ORE--53
: RESPONDENTS
(By /5: ASHOK HARANAHALLI ASSOCIATES
‘..-FOR R14, 6 & 8,
SR1. SPIIVARUDRAPPA SHETKAR FOR R-I 1-14,
R-7 AND R~9 ARE SERVED
R~5 AND R» 10 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH V.O.
DATED 11/1/2010.]
WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE TPIE ORDER
69/
PASSED IN THE wan’ PETITION NO.1151l/2005 DATED
14/12/2007. *’n
THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR
HEARING THIS DAY, SREEDHAR RAO. J.,§..oELiVsmD
THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMeN$§’
The appellant/petitioner-.. ‘tenant
beionging to Respt.No.11 to liitiandlords); father of the
landlords had tenantedihe prefini’s’es’.» had filed a petition
under HRC Act for ‘evictionon ‘theV”g1’o’hnd of personal
occupVationr;.. udisniissed. It is the contention
of the”app.ellant’that:’the’~-respondents set up the neighbours
to coniplain to Corporation to demolish the building in a
of whict1v——–the appellant is in occupation on the
V is in a dilapidated condition. The Corporation
‘authonties did not take any action on their representation.
The .. of the respondents filed writ petition seeking
rnandamus against the Corporation for demolishing the
it C’ E bluilding.
This court has passed an order in W.P.No.46289 / 2003
directing the Corporation to consider the representation of
JK
5
the owner of the building within two months after1is’suing
notice to the interested persons. The notice was:issi1ed__lto the
appellant herein. The appellant objected…_fl1e.p
proceedings on the ground that the portionof
his occupation is safe and fit for habitation. ‘Corporation
authorities, however, proceeded» With” .defiolitionof the
building.
The appellant filed.l:W This court
directed the, Corp–orat_ion not to demolish the
portionll’of’atli’e tlie”oecupation of the appellant
herein.’ and to H a fresh opportunity before
dem_olition~.,tal:er_.j, “The Corporation authorities again
r1oticeAAl”‘to. …. the appellant. The objections were
‘.V.con.sid.ered’-.par1d an order for demolition was passed.
“Ac’clordin’§f fpfo.’ the appellant orders were not served on him.
The .. Corporation authorities proceeded to demolish the
if ibuilding in the occupation of the appellant. The appellant
Zgfiieti Writ petition in W.P.No.l0663/05 on 11.3.2005. The
appellant states that he informed the Corporation authorities
that he has filed writ petition to stop demolition of the
(3
building, since his interim application in the wri’t*–petitiiori,_V”is
likely to be heard and orders would
Corporation authorities without]. he;td’mg__ttsA
demolished the building,’ The d’wri”; peti.t.iotn’ ‘*bec5’m§.«;–..p
infrcutous. . .
The appellant has.. to declare
that the order of demoliti’on the landlords
to put up the same to the
his shop and also atleast
to ofxRs’.2;OGO/~ per day. This court
foundhthat relief stated in the petition are
disptitesxlfactsVflH_enC_e,V’~:-‘directed the appellant t:o approach
coitirt. Accord.i.n’gly. dismissed the petition. Hence. this
V apppea.l.* ..
Oiidneaaririg the counsel for the appellant we find that
the .. relief sought for cannot be granted in the writ.
jurisdiction. The question of reconstruction of the building
and re–letting the building and payment of damages is the
‘ matter to be considered by the Civil Courts. If there is any
illegality on the part of the municipality and the
%/
respondent/landiords in getting the building demolished, t:he_ «l it
appellant is at Eiberty to initiate legal action against than. V
that View the appeal is dismissed.