Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 29470
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Ashok S. Kinagi, J
G. S. Uma Devi – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
WP No. 26691 of 2024
For the Appellants/ Petitioners: Chandrashekar P V.
For the Respondents: Bopanna Belliappa S.
The State cannot forcibly dispossess a person from their property for public purposes like road widening without following the due process of law, such as initiating land acquisition proceedings, as it violates Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:(A) Property Rights - Due Process of Law - Dispossession of owner without acquisition proceedings - State cannot forcibly evict a person from their property for road widening without initiating due process of law as it violates the constitutional right to property. (Para 6)
(B) Constitutional Law - Article 300A - Right to Property - The act of dispossessing a petitioner forcibly without initiating land acquisition proceedings is contrary to Article 300A of the Constitution of India. (Para 6)
Issues: Whether the respondents can forcibly dispossess the petitioner from the schedule property for road widening without following the due process of law.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's claim of ownership and illegal attempted demolition by respondents. (Para 1) |
| 2. submissions regarding the necessity of land acquisition proceedings for eviction. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. protection of property rights under article 300a against forcible dispossession. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. direction to follow due process of law for property acquisition. (Para 7) |
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING FOR A DIRECTION RESTRAINING THE RESPONDENTS FROM INTERFERING WITH THE PETITIONER PEACEFUL POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTIES IN ANY MANNER INCLUDING THE DEMOLISHING OF THE STRUCTURE/ SHOPS STANDING IN THEREON OR UTILIZATION OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTIES OTHER THAN THROUGH DUE PROCESS OF LAW; DECLARE THAT, THE ACTION OF THE RESPONDENTS TO DEMOLISH / UTILIZATION OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTIES WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN ONE WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND ANY AUTHORITY OF LAW.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner filed this writ petition stating that the petitioner is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property. The respondents under the guise of so-called widening of the road, without following the due process of law, arbitrarily attempted to demolish the existing structures and tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the petition schedule property. The action of the respondents is in violation of the Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Hence, the petitioner aggrieved with the highhanded and arbitrary action of the respondents, filed this writ petition.
2. Heard Sri. Chandrashekar P.V., the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Bopanna Belliappa S., learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 5.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents without due process of law are trying to dispossess the petitioner from the property in question. Hence, he submits that the respondents may be directed to evict the petitioner by due process of law i.e., initiating land acquisition proceedings. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the writ petition.
4. Per contra, learned AGA submits that the respondents will evict the petitioner by due process of law. Hence, prays to dismiss the writ petition.
5. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The petitioner is claiming to be the owner and in possession of the petition schedule property and the respondents without initiating any acquisition proceedings, are dispossessing the petitioner forcibly from the petition schedule property. The action of the respondents in dispossessing the petitioner forcibly, is contrary to Article 300A of the Constitution of India. If at all the respondents are intending to widen the road, the respondents have to dispossess the petitioner by due process of law i.e., initiate acquisition proceedings. Without due process of law, the respondents have no right to dispossess the petitioner from the petition schedule property.
7. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The writ petition is disposed of.
If the respondents intend to widen the road, liberty is reserved to the respondents to acquire the property of the petitioner.
Meanwhile, the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioner from the petition schedule property without due process of law.
