Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 27478
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
K.SOMASHEKAR, VENKATESH NAIK T, JJ
THE CHIEF SECRETARY STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA VIDHANA VEEDHI DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001 – Appellant
Versus
S.M. JAYANNA S/O. MALLESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RESIDENT OF SATHANAKERE VILLAGE KANAKKATE HOBLI ARASIKERE TALUK-573 103 – Respondent
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1260 OF 2018 | O.S.NO.22 OF 2013
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI HARISHA A. S.
For the Respondents: SRI A. V. GANGADHARAPPA, SRI G. RAVISHANKAR, SRI H. T. JAGADEESH, SRI SHARANJITH SHETTY
The authority must follow due process in demolishing properties, and arbitrary actions without notice violate constitutional rights and principles of natural justice.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 96 - Right to Shelter - The appellant challenged the trial Court's decree awarding damages due to illegal demolition of a residential house without prior notice. The plaintiff proved ownership and possession of the property, while the defendants based their actions on the property’s classification as encroached government land. The Court emphasized the need for due process in demolition actions, stating: 'the executive cannot become a judge and decide that a person who encroached the land is guilty and therefore punish him by demolishing...'. The trial Court's decision was confirmed, but the interest imposed was reduced. (Paras 51, 52)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff owned a property claimed to be illegally demolished by government officials under the pretext of being within lake boundaries, despite evidence indicating his lawful ownership and necessary permits. The case involved a suit for damages due to this demolition. (Paras 3, 4)
Findings of Court:
The trial Court found evidence supporting the plaintiff's ownership claims and ruled the demolition without notice unlawful, awarding a decree for Rs.11.00 lakhs in damages and imposing 18% interest. The appeal contested the legality of this judgment, arguing the property was government land and the demolition was lawful. (Paras 6, 7, 50)
Issues: The main issues included whether the property was indeed part of government land and whether the demolition violated due process. (Paras 1, 2)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court confirmed the necessity of following due process when demolishing properties, underscoring the constitutional principle of the rule of law, emphasizing that arbitrary demolition without notice breaches natural justice and could infringe citizens' rights. (Paras 20, 28, 40)
Result: Appeal dismissed; the trial Court's judgment and decree were confirmed with reduced interest. (Paras 51, 52)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. identification of parties and case details. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. plaintiff's claim of ownership and damages. (Para 3) |
| 3. defendants' arguments against plaintiff's ownership. (Para 4) |
| 4. trial court issues and evidence presented. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 5. points of contention for appellate review. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 6. court's examination of ownership evidence. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 7. demolition actions and accusations of notice violations. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 8. rule of law principles impacting demolition actions. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 9. right to shelter and implications of demolition. (Para 27 , 32) |
| 10. final order of the appellate court. (Para 49 , 51) |
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)
This appeal is filed by the appellants-State challenging the judgment and decree dated 02.12.2017 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Arsikere (herein after referred to as 'the trial Court', for brevity) in O.S.No.22/2013.
2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. The appellants are defendant Nos.14, 13, 12, 1 to 5, 7 to 9 and 11 respectively and respondents are plaintiff, defendant Nos.6 and 10 respectively.
3. The brief facts of the case are that, the plaintiff filed suit for damages on account of loss sustained by him by the defendants. The suit schedule property is a site bearing No.318 of Sathanakere Village, Kanakatte Hobli, Arsikere Taluk measuring East-West 40 feet and North-South 40 feet. The schedule property was granted in favour of one Somashekharappa, S/o Marulappa, resident of Sathanakere Village and on 2.10.1989, the grant certificate was issued and possession was delivered to him, who had got khata changed in his name at Kanakatte Grama Panchayat, thus, Somashekharappa became the absolute owner of the schedule property. On 26.12.2002, the plaintiff purchased schedule property from Somashekarappa under registered sale deed and he was put in possession of the property, he changed khata in his name and he was paying taxes to the Panchayat, obtained license from Kanakatte Grama Panchayat and constructed the residential house in the said site by incurring more than Rs.8.00 lakhs during the year 2008. Prior to year 2008, the plaintiff S.M. Jayanna had filed suit in O.S.No.31/2003 against his vendor Somashekharappa for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the schedule property and obtained decree in the said suit. After construction of residential house on the schedule property, plaintiff and his family members were residing in the said house. When things stood thus, during the first week of June 2013, the Tahsildar, Arsikere and his staff came to the house of plaintiff and informed that the schedule property does not belong to Grama Panchayat and it is situated within the vicinity of Lake, which comes under Revenue Department. Accordingly, the plaintiff issued notice dated 14.06.2013 to defendants and no reply was given by them. The schedule property is surrounded by temple of Someshwara Swamy, Government School and another Government school property, there is a road and after that there is house of one Doddamallappa. However, on 29.06.2013, defendant No.1 and his staff came to the schedule property and suddenly started demolishing the residential house, where plaintiff had stored nearly 25,000 coconuts. Due to the threat of defendants, plaintiff took out the coconuts and other residential essentials from the house. However, before demolition, no notice was given by the defendants and the plaintiff did not have any opportunity to put forth his say in the matter. Immediately, the plaintiff approached the Gram Panchayat and came to know that the schedule property does not belong to Kere Angala (Lake premises), therefore, the demolition undertaken by the Tahsildar and his staff members, without giving any notice to the plaintiff, would amount to illegal act and thus, they are liable to pay damages to the plaintiff, which is assessed for a sum o
