1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIE BENCH AT GULBARGA DATED THIS THE 2V’ DAY OF APRIL 2009 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY AND THE HON I3LE MR. JUSTICE AN. VENUGOPALA GOWDA c 1 c±cwo.p7LQQsc!v!L IN Wfl!O39*2QJB BETWEEN. SMT NASRER SEGUM SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS j H A KUALEEL, S/0 LATE MA SUKUR LASKERY AGED 40 YEARS, 0CC PRIVATE WORK, b) MOHAMMED SHAKEEL 5/0 LATE MASUKUR LASKERY, AGED 25 YEARS, 0CC: UNEMPLOYED, 2 SMT BISMII LA BEGUM SUBHADRA W/O LATE MOHAMMED ABDUL SUKUR LASKARI AGED 57 YEARS, 0CC: HOUSEHOLD, 3 SM’f SYEEDA BANU W/0 MOHAMMED ABDUL SURHAN LASKARI. AGED 52 YEARS, OC HOUSEHOLD WORK, 4 SMT KHALEDA BEGU S/C ABDULJALEEL LASKARI AGED 43 YEARS, 0CC HOUSEHOLD WORK, 5 SMTNAP1SABEGUM W/O MOHAMMED ABDUL SALAM LASKARI AGED 45 YEARS, OCC;HOUSEHOLD WORK 13 ) SMTSARDARBEGUM W/ 3 MOHAMMED ABDIJL HAFEEZ LASKARI, AGED 50 YEARS, 0CC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, ALL R/AT N )ORKHAN AKAHDA HUMNABAD DISTRICT HIDAR THROUGH THEIR GPA HOLDER, MOHAMMED ABDUL SUBHAN, 5/0 SIIAIK MAHABOOB LASKARI AGED o2 YEARS, 0CC PENSIONER N/U NOOR KHAN AKHADA, HUMNABAO iPt AUtfl DISTRICT BIDAR 4 PETITIONEP (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR P PATIL, ADVOCATEI AND I SRI HARSH&GUI’PA, AGE: MAJOR, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BIDAR DISTRICT CF U (( BIDAR 4fPETF3NtYEN 3 lIc (B SriS S KUMMAN, AGA) G THIS CCC FILED U/S I 1&12 OF I HE COPIrEMVT OF COUST ACT PRAYING TO INITIATE CON7EMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE RESPONDENT I ACCUSED FOR DISOBEYING ORDER DTD 1 L3200S IN WKNO 394612008 THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEAR T NG ON THIS DAY, ANAND BYRAREDDY, JMADETHE FOlLOWING ORDER The present complaint is filed on the footing that the complainants’ art the owners of the house propeit at Amhedkar Chowk of Humanabad It is alleged that the respondent had initiated coercive steps for demolition of structures without due process of law and that had been challenged by the complainants 1S 3 in a writ petition No3946/ 2008 and this Court disposed of the writ petition by an order dated 11 03.2008. The operative portion of the order reads as follows: ‘4. II is profitable to refer to Section 81(2) (1) of the Kaniataka Municipalities Act, 1964, which states that all public streets and the pavement, stones and other materiaLs thereof and also erections, materials, implements and thinp provided for such streets, are vested in the Municipality, if it is the ease of the respondents that the petitioners have encroached on the stree4 the respondents have not only the nghl but also the duty tofree the same from encroachment However, if the properties in question are not on the street and if they are not arnipulsorily aapnred by the respondents for their puipose and if they are not purchased by them frj holding private negotiations. the respondents shall not demolish the shop units in question or dispossess the petitioners from the said shop units’ 2 It is the further ease of the complainants that m spite of the above order, the respondent has proceeded to carry out demolition without compliance with the specific direction issued by this Court. Notice having been ordered of the complaint, the respondent has entered appearance and has filed statement of 4 objections to state that in order to clear encroachments on the road from Amhedkar Chowk to Basaveshwara Cbowk of Humanabad, which is about half (1/2) a kilometer and where people had uniformly encroached the mad by construction of houses and shops over the decades and in outer to clear the said encroachments in the interest of the public for their personal and vehicular movement, a coordination meeting was called on 2502.2008 in the presence of the Chief Officer of the Town Municipality Town Planning Anthority and the owners of the property whose properties are situated on the said road. The persons gathered at the meeting had voluntarily expressed and consented to remove the encroachments so as to enable the authorities to widen the existing road, which is about 60 fret The proceedings were drawn up accordingly and signatures of all concerned were obtained. However, the complainants were not present and did not take steps to have the encroachment removed, though every other persons who either owned shops or houses on the said road bad voluntarily come forward to remove the encroachments, 5 3. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the respondent had instructed the Chief Officer to issue notice to the complainants in accordance with lais and accordmglv, a notice dated 11 O42OO8 had been issued irifonning the complainants that they had unauthorizedly constnicted the building and there is ncioac hinent on the mad and called upon the complainants to produce documents if any to establish their title to the property. Howevei, the notice was refused. This compelled the respondent to affix the notice on the property On his part, the complainant has failed to produce any documents in respect of the propert and in the absence )f ii hich, demolition has been carried out to clear the encroachment, However; by the time demolition has been carried out, it is stated that the complainants had voluntarily xi moved all the articles from the shops which comprises the cncioa bed portion, and has alieadv removed the steel shutters of the premises 4 II is further stated that the complainant has now approached the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Dwrsion) Humanabad in a civil suit in OS. No.104/2008 seeking the relief of declaration of the onlcr passed by the Chief Officer and has further sought for 6 initiating the acquisition proceedings and the same is pendmg adjudication It is stated by the respondent that they have not violated the condition imposed m the outer of this Court as stated in paragrapb-4 of the order, which is extnrcted herein above 3. In this background, the insistence of the counsel for the. ‘omplainants that he would file a rejoinder to the statement of objections notwithstanding the fact that a civil suit has already been instituted in respect of the alleged action of the respondent, even then the respondent has to be bronght to book for having violated the outer of the court and therefore, seeking time, to enable the complamauts who claim to be abroad to instruct the counsel to file a rejoinder whkh is proposed, is not tenable 4 Having regant to the above facts and circumstances, as contended by the parties, there are questions of fact ihich have to be enqmrcd into It is more appropriate that the same which are the subject matter of a civil suit, which the nmpiainants b’ive already instituted, the complainants have recourse to the said proceedings and would effectively enable them to seek appropriate reliefs therein including such action against 7 the respondent as would be warranted in law, if such action is established to he illegal. Hence, the allegation as to violation of the order of this Court giving rise to several questions of fact which requires to be adjudicated more appropriately, in the pending civil suit and consequently, the complaint is liable to he closed. Accordingly, the complaint is closed. The prayer for tiling a rejoinder is rejected. However, it is made clear that any observations made in this order would not prejudice either the complainant or the respondent in the pending civil suit safr JUDGE sat VRL