Karnataka High Court
Balaji Garden Layout Welfare ... vs The Commissioner on 2 December, 2024
Author: B M Shyam Prasad
Bench: B M Shyam Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:49442
WP No. 1739 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1739 OF 2022 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
BALAJI GARDEN LAYOUT
WELFARE ASSOCIATION
BALAJI GARDEN LAYOUT
14TH CROSS NAGANATHAPURA MAIN ROAD
NEAR SHIVA REDDY LAYOUT
SINGASANDRA, BANGALORE-560 100
REP BY ITS VICE-PRESIDENT
RUDRA SWAMY JOY
....PETITIONER
(BY SRI. DEVENDRA GOWDA R R.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE
HEAD OFFICE AT HUDSON CIRCLE
Digitally
signed by BANGALORE-560002.
VANAMALA N
Location: 2. JOINT COMMISSIONER
HIGH COURT
OF BURHAT BENGALURU
KARNATAKA MAHANAGARA PALIKE
BOMMANAHALLI ZONE
BENGALURU-560068.
3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
BRUHAT BENGALURU
MAHANAGARA PALIKE
BEGUR SUB DIVISION
DEVARACHIKKANAHALLI MAIN ROAD
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:49442
WP No. 1739 of 2022
BEGURU, BENGALURU-560114.
4. BASAVARAJ B. HARAPANAHALLI
S/O BASAPPA, AGED 63 YEARS,
R/AT SITE NO. 45, 4TH CROSS,
MARUTHINAGARA LAYOUT,
NAGANATHAPURA VILLAGE,
ELECTRONIC CITY POST,
BENGALURU-560 100.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.SUMITHRA G.M, ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. SARTIHA KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. M. NARAYANA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. N. BHAVYA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUITON OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ORDER DATED 29.12.2021 ANNEXURE-A PASSED
BY THE R2 ON THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY SOME
DISGRUNTLED PERSONS WHO IS NOTHING TO DO
WITH THE AFFAIRS OF THE RESIDENTS OF
PETITIONERS ASSOCIATION (22.12.2021) DIRECTING
THE R3 TO REMOVE THE COMPOUND WALL PUTUP IN
THE PETITIONERS LAYOUT AND THEREBY TO
CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER
ASSOCIATION DATED 07.01.2022 ANNEXURE-D.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE
THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:49442
WP No. 1739 of 2022
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
The dispute in this petition is between the Welfare Association incorporated by the owners of a residential layout [Balaji Garden Layout] and one of the owners of a property in the adjacent layout [Shiv Reddy Layout]. The owner of a property in the adjacent layout [Shiv Reddy Layout] has filed a representation with the second respondent alleging that the petitioner has constructed a compound blocking access through the Roads in the Balaji Garden Layout to him and others similarly placed. The second respondent, upon receiving such representation, has directed the jurisdictional Assistant Executive Engineer [the third respondent] to remove the compound constructed by the petitioner.
2. The Joint Commissioner has also directed the petitioner to remove the compound [obstruction]. The petitioner alleges that the Joint Commissioner, -4- NC: 2024:KHC:49442 WP No. 1739 of 2022 without opportunity and by a single line order, has directed removal of the compound [obstruction]. This Court on 02.06.2022, has appointed a learned member of the Bar, as the Court Commissioner calling for inspection of the layouts and a report including the sketch of the Roads in these layouts. In compliance, the Court Commissioner has filed his report with a sketch.
3. Sri Devendra Gowda R.R., the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M. Narayana Bhat, the learned counsel for the fourth respondent, and Smt. Sumithra G.M., the learned counsel for the first to third respondents, are heard for final disposal of the petition examining the Commissioner's report/sketch This sketch that shows two adjacent layouts1 read as under:
1
The Petitioner's Layout [Balaji Garden Layout] is marked in 'Red' and the Adjacent Layout [Shiv Reddy] is marked in 'Blue'. The obstructions are marked in 'Yellow'.-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:49442 WP No. 1739 of 2022
4. At the outset this Court must record that there is unanimity between Sri Devendra Gowda R.R. and Sri M. Narayana Bhat that the petitioner need not be called upon to remove the construction of the compound [obstruction] at the First and Second Cross Roads of the Balaji Garden layout. The learned counsels however differ on whether this Court must direct the petitioner to remove the compound at both -6- NC: 2024:KHC:49442 WP No. 1739 of 2022 the Third and Fourth Cross Roads in this Layout. Sri Devendra Gowda R.R. submits that this Court, given the circumstances of the case, must direct the petitioner to remove the compound constructed at the entrance of either the Third or Fourth Cross Roads, and Sri M Narayana Bhat canvasses that the construction of the compound both at the Third and fourth cross Road must be removed.
5. If the proposition is that there must be right of access through the roads in layout formed with the approval of the Planning Authority, this proposition must equally apply even when there are unapproved layouts. If this proposition is applied, this Court cannot permit the petitioner to make a choice between the two Roads. Therefore, this Court must direct the petitioner to remove the construction that blocks access to the Third and Fourth cross Road in the petitioner's Layout [Balaji Garden Layout]. When queried, Sri Devendra Gowda R.R. -7- NC: 2024:KHC:49442 WP No. 1739 of 2022 submits that these obstructions would be removed within eight [8] weeks and if the petitioner fails to remove, this Court may call upon the third respondent to remove the obstruction. In the light of the afore, the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed-in-part permitting the petitioner to remove the construction that blocks access to the Third and Fourth cross Road in Balaji Garden Layout as per the Court Commissioner's Report. The petitioner is permitted to remove this obstruction within eight [8] weeks from today and directing the third respondent to remove the construction only if the petitioner fails to remove such obstruction over the next eight[8] weeks.
Sd/-
(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SA