Case Note & Summary
The petitioner was a tenant running a textile shop in a building at Magadi Town, measuring 19 feet by 76 feet, referred to as Schedule-B property. He had entered into an agreement of sale with the original owner K.S. Nataraj in 2002, but the property was later sold to Smt. Radha Balakrishna in 2004. Pressured to vacate, the petitioner filed O.S. No. 307/2011 before the Additional Civil Judge, Magadi, and obtained an interim injunction on 09.08.2011 restraining demolition, dispossession, and interference with his possession. Despite the injunction, officials of the Public Works Department and police demolished the building, alleging it was an encroachment on a State Highway that needed to be removed for road widening. The petitioner claimed no notice or notification was issued, and the demolition caused a loss of Rs. 72,00,000/-. He sought a direction to produce the road-widening notification, a declaration that the demolition was illegal, restoration of the building, and compensation. The State contended that the shop was an unauthorized encroachment on a State Highway, that the owner had given a no-objection certificate for demolition, and therefore no notice was required to be given to the tenant. The court examined Section 23 of the Karnataka State Highways Act, 1964, which mandates a notice to the person responsible for the encroachment or his representative specifying the land and time limit for removal. The State admitted no notice was issued. The court held that the owner's no objection does not substitute the statutory notice, and the demolition without following Section 23 was illegal. The court allowed the writ petition and granted the reliefs prayed for, including declaration of illegality, restoration of the building, and compensation of Rs. 72,00,000/-.
Headnote
A) Karnataka State Highways Act, 1964 - Prevention of Encroachment - Notice Requirement - Section 23 - The court held that the demolition of the petitioner's shop by the respondents was illegal as no notice was served on the petitioner or his representative as required under Section 23(1) of the Act. The contention that the owner's no objection dispensed with the need for notice was rejected. (Paras 16-18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the demolition of the Schedule-B property by the respondents without issuing a notice as required under Section 23 of the Karnataka State Highways Act, 1964 was illegal and whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation and restoration.
Final Decision
The court held the demolition illegal for non-compliance with Section 23 of the Karnataka State Highways Act, 1964. The court allowed the writ petition and granted the reliefs including declaration of illegality, restoration, and compensation of Rs.72,00,000/-.
Law Points
- Compliance with Section 23 of Karnataka State Highways Act
- 1964 mandatory
- demolition of encroachment without notice illegal
- No Objection Certificate from owner does not dispense with statutory notice
