Sri B. Prabhakar Reddy vs State Of Karnataka By Its Secretary on 15 November, 2011

[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Sri B. Prabhakar Reddy vs State Of Karnataka By Its Secretary on 15 November, 2011

Bench: B.S.Patil

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE)
DATED THIS THE 157 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2011 ---
BEFORE

THE HON BLE MRLJUSTICE Boe. PATIL,

W.P.No. 38251/2011
& W.P.Nos.38282-286/ (2011 (GM- RES)

BETWEEN.

I.

ha

SRI B.PRABHAKAR REDDY

AGED 49 YEARS. -

S/O NARASI REDDY :

R/O NOL27S & 274, ACHES NAGAR, -
SOLADEVAN AHALL I, BANGAL ORE: 90. _

SRI D.M.PUTTA SV In

AGED 39 YEARS, .

S/O MARIDEVARE,

R/O NO27?,. ACHT® NAGAR,

SOLAL DEVANAHAL LL in BANGALORE- oO.

SMT. RAd ESHW A RD *
ane 44 YRARS, :
N/G SURENDER BABU.
ra, NO. 261, ACHIT NAGAR,

oS SOLADEV ANAI HALLE, BANGALORE-90.

ce

posts
or .

. "SMT RE Mis a ;
AGED 4B-Y EARS,

W/O SRPGIRISH.
RiO NO. 268, ACHIT NAGAR,
SOLADEVANAHALLI. BANGALORE-90.

_ SPI KN. ESHWARA
AGED 40 YEARS,

ANJAPPA,
R/ONG, 250, ACHIY NAGAR,

SOLADEVANAHALLI, BANGALORE-90,

SRI RANGASWAMY K.
AGED 36 YE
3/0 SRL KENCHAPPA,



R/O NO, 279, ACHIT NAGAR, oo
SOLADEVANAHALLI, BANGALORE-90. ... PETITIONERS =

(BY SRI M_RLRAJAGOPAL. ADV.)

AND _

7 STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN:
DEVELOPMENT, VIDHANA SOUDE: A,
BANGALORE.

Baad

STATE OF KARNATARA |

BY ITS SECRETARY. oF Me
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST. ECOLOGY &
ENVIRONMENTAL DEPT, VIKAS: a SOUDHA,
BANGALORE.

3. THE PRINCIP: ALS g CRETARY
AIR AND POLLU TIE 3, CONTROL BO: ARD,
M.S. BUIL DING, BANGAL AGRE. --

BAN CAL ORE | DEVE t (OPMEN' r AUTHORY ry BY ITS
COMMISSIONER. KUMARA PARK WEST.

T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, . .

BANGALORE, mo

5, ASST) DIREC PO! POR PLANNING
. PLANNING AUTHORITY FOR BANGALORE CITY,
" BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
.. KEIMARA PARK WEST,
_ OT CHOWDAIAN ROAD,
_ BANGALGRE:,

6  TAHASILDAR
_ BANGALORE NORTH TALU
» BANGALORE,

OF, "SRE CM, NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
AUINIVAPD: A,
2 LAKSHMI CLINI
aT Reo 7

S/O LATE
R/O 285
CHORKASANDT 3,
T. DASARAHALL], BANGALOKE



3. SRI A.NAGESH
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
S/O B. ANDANAPPA,
R/O NO.1L, SRI BHYRAVESHWARA NILAYA,
CHENNAYAKANAPALYA, NAGASANDRA POST
BANGALORE
9, SRI M. RAVI KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
S/O LATE MUNISWAMY RAJU
NO.21 AND 22, 24TH CROSS ROAD,
SILVER OAK LAYOUT, 7TH PH/ ASE JP
NAGAR, BANGALORE-7&. , me . RE SPONDE N 1S

(BY SRI HUTNARENDRA PRA. SAP, HGP. FOR RL 3 Sk 6.
SRE A.M.VIJAY, ADV. FOR R4y 8
SRE NAGARAJT DAMODHAR, ADV. FOR Ree a) mo

THESE WRIT a PEA FITIONS £ f RE FIL ED ty SOE ER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONS MTG: PION Oa ED IDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF | MANDAMUS. FOR BEARING R7 TO RO PROM
UNDERTARING Ab Ny DE TELOPME NE ACTIVITIES IN SY.NO.4 & 12
OF SASIVEGHATTA VIE LAGE, IN VIEW OF THE GOVT. ORDER
DTLLG.E LO 3 & 20.1 i. PAS PER. ANN. D& DL AND ETC.

TE IESE PLS MONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY. THE COUR' PLADE "THEE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

I). ° In these writ petitions, petitioners are seeking issue of writ of mandamus against respondents 7 to 9 restraining them oe from undertaking any developmental activilies In Sy.Nos.4 and

- : a of Sasuveghatta Village in the light of the Government

- - Orders | dated 18.11.2003 and 20.01.2004 produced al "An nesxures-D & Di.

Ped 1 eee

2. According to the petitioners. these Government Orders place fetters on the developmental activities within a radius of about 1 km. in respect of Thippagon danahait Resel Catchment Area which has been categorised. into four zones.

3. The case of the petitioners is. that they are, win resider nis of Achit Nagar Layout in soladevaiahalli; Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. Accordirig io tiem, respondents 7 to 9 are the owners of lands bearing Sy. Nos. A & 12 te of Sasuveghatta Village which are located veithiny a vaditis et 1 km of Arkavathi and Kumudavathi Catchment Area. and therefore fall within the prohibited. zone where developmental activities for putting up construction, atc, iS rn esiricted,.

4. i is net ei contrary to such restriction imposed by. the' Competent Authority. respondents 7 to 9 have been caizying, an develogmenta activities in these survey numbers which "are Shuated just by the side of the lake. Petitioners

- : elaim that they have approached the Planning Authority namely : the 'Banual ore Development Authority and also the Assistant . Direc tor for Planning, Bangalore Development Authority and "have orally complained about the developmental activities 5 undertaken by respondents 7 to 9. Despite the same, no action has been taken by them.

5. Tt is the further case of the peUlioners: hat. whey have . approached the Tahsildar, Bangalore Nort Taluk . reeponden t No.6 herein with a representation AS pe, Annexure stating that the area comprises in Sy.Nos.4 & 12 came within ihe green belt and as well as the Caichitent Ag ea of Arkavathi river to the Thippaagondanahalli Reservoir and that a "part of the land where the road is sought 10 be formed fein Sy.No.13 which belonged to the Government and therefore requested to visit the location and take necessary, action. | Despite the same, the Tahsildar has not taken any action on the representation submitted by them. .-

6. - Respondents 1, 2, 3 & 6 are represented by the learned Goverrumen ' . Pleader. Respondents 4 & 5 are represented by Sri Vv jay. learned Standing Counsel for the BDA and ve, respondents 7 to 9 (private respondents) though served and represented none appears.

% e. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri MR. Rajagopa , ne emt penne eel om os fet on _ o, o trond peek gf wo os Sent pan Su id od sine?

fe re '& rellerating ihe contentioris urged in the writ that the respondent -- authorities are enjoined with duties.te act in accordance with the Government Orders and the direction issued to prevent unauthorised developmental activities, being.

carried on in the Catehment Aree of -Thippagondenahalli-

Reservoir so as to avoid environmenial hazards.

&. To the Court query as to whether any representation has been made to respondents 3.to 5 bringingto their notice the alleged illegal activities carried on by respondents 7 to 9, counsel for the pétiGoners subnpiits that orally the BDA and its Officers have. beet: appraised by "the petitioners of the unauthorised acts of respondents 7 to 9. He further contends that the "tahsildar has been. appraised by submitting a representation ° as per. Annexure K on 07.10.2011. In this : regard, he pas.ma le available to the Court the office copy of the representation maintained by him which contains the seal and the date.

a! Learned Government Pleader submits that the Tahsildar "ig not the Competent Authority to enforce the Government Orders at Annexures-D & D1 and now that a representation is : £ omade very recently Le. im ihe month of October, 2OL1, the Tahsildar will look into the same and take appropriate action in accordance with law.

iO. in the light of the submissions made "above, in the absence of ary written representation. given. by the petitioners :

addressed to the competent. autoiities,. - pa srticularly respondents 1 to 5. this Court casnot issue 4 _ writ of mandamus against them "to consider the, grievance of the petitioners. Nothing prevents the pet tioners from making such a grievance in writs Ing, "Henve, "betty is reserved to the petitioners to . jake : such . a grievatice by submitting a representation 10 respondents 1 to 5. Ifa representation is submitted, he re spande -nt.---atithorities, l am sure will take action in 1 accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

* ean

11. Insofar asthe grievance made before the Tahsildar vide Anhexure-K. suffice to observe that the Tahsildar shall look into the Sammie 'and take action in accordance with Jaw as 'vy as possible.

- expeditions! "42. . It is necessary to notice here that as liberty is reserved to 'the pelifioners to approach the authorities with a written representation, counsel for the petitioners does not for the L go

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court