Karnataka High Court
Smt Shakunthala Chaugule vs The Commissioner Bangalore Mahanagara ... on 16 June, 2015
Author: Subhro Kamal Mukherjee
Bench: Subhro Kamal Mukherjee
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE 2015
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR.SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
WRIT PETITION NO.15067/2006 (LB-BMP-PIL)
BETWEEN
1. SMT SHAKUNTHALA CHAUGULE
W/O SHRI T N CHAUGULE
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
NO.14, MLA LAYOUT
RMV II STAGE, BEL ROAD
LOTTEGOLLAHALLI
BANGALORE-560094
2. SHRI T N CHAUGULE
S/O LATE N CHAUGULE
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
R/AT NO.14, MLA LAYOUT
RMV II STAGE, BEL ROAD
LOTTEGOLLAHALLI
BANGALORE-560094
3. RAM SUNDAR SINGH
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS
NO.15, MLA LAYOUT
RMV II STAGE, BEL ROAD
LOTTEGOLLAHALLI
BANGALORE-560094
... PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. LAKSHMY IYENGAR, ADV.,)
AND
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
2
CORPORATION OFFICES
BANGALORE-560002
2. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
SANKEY ROAD
BANGALORE-560020
3. THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR
BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND
SEWERAGE BOARD
CAUVERY BHAVAN
BANGALORE-560009
4. MR. K.KODANDA RAMA REDDY
OWNER AND PROMOTER
K.K. CONSTRUCTIONS
#419, 14TH 'A' CROSS
20TH MAIN, I BLOCK
RAJAJINAGAR
BANGALORE
(R-4 IMPLEADED V/O DT.
28.07.2009)
5. SMT. MAMATHA
W/O SRI B.L. GAJENDRA
SITE NO.38, WARD NO.18
LOTTEGOLLAHALLI
R.M.V. 2ND STAGE
4TH BLOCK
BANGALORE-560094
6. SRI N. LOKESH
G.P.A.HOLDER OF
LATE DR. H.S. HANUMANTHAPPA
SITE NO.39, WARD NO.18
LOTTEGOLLAHALLI
R.M.V. 2ND STAGE
4TH BLOCK
BANGALORE-560094
7. MOHAMMED HAFEEZULLA (SHARIFF)
S/O LATE ABDUL AZEEZ SAHEB
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/AT #61, 4TH 'A' CROSS
NEXT TO EURO KIDS SCHOOL
3
DOLLARS COLONY
SANJAYNAGAR
BANGALORE-560094
8. NAYAZUDDIN S.
S/O SIRAJUDDIN
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/AT #343
JALAHALLI WEST
VASANTHAPURA MAIN ROAD
KAMMAGOWDANAHALLI WEST
BANGALORE-560015
(R-5 TO 8 IMPLEADED V/O
DT. 06.12.2013)
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI G M CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV., FOR R-1;
SRI K KRISHNA, ADV., FOR R-2;
SRI S N KESHAVA MURTHY, ADV., FOR R-3;
SRI K HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, ADV., FOR R-4;
SRI M SUDARSHAN MURTHY, ADV., FOR R-5;
R-6 SERVED;
SRI D N NANJUNDA REDDY, SR.COUNSEL FOR
SRI NISHANTH A.V., ADV., FOR CONTEMNOR;
SRI S N BHAT, ADV., FOR R-7 & 8)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO STOP ILLEGAL
CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLISH EXISTING ILLEGAL
CONSTRUCTION IN MLA LAYOUT, RMV II STAGE,
LOTTEGOLLAHALLI, BANGALORE, WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT
AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, NAGARATHNA .J MADE THE FOLLOWING:
4
ORDER
This writ petition, which is filed in public interest, ventilates the grievance of the petitioners against the alleged illegal construction in MLA Layout, RMV II Stage, Lottegollahalli, Bengaluru.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that respondent No.4 has put up illegal construction which, according to the petitioners, was on a road which was the access road for the residents of MLA Layout to reach the main road.
3. The writ petition was listed on several occasions. On 14.12.2012, this Court passed an order directing that a Special Committee be constituted comprising of the Commissioner, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority as well as the Court Commissioner to examine the records and also to ascertain the extent of violations that have been committed by respondent No.4, as also the nature of permissions that were granted by the various authorities to respondent No.4 for putting up the construction which, according to the petitioners, was on a road and illegal. The order dated 14.12.2012 reads as under:
5
"This Petition was filed for the reason that the Petitioners are apprehending that they would have no ingress and egress to their sites once the contiguous/adjoining Site No.17 was occupied by its allottee. These arguments were raised on the basis of a plan purportedly representing a BDA Layout had been filed. In the course of hearing, it transpires that the plan relied upon by the Petitioners was subsequently amended by the BDA and that the reality is that there is no allotment of any Plot No.17. On this site, a road having a width of 30 feet has been constructed thereby enabling regular ingress and egress to the residents of that society, from the North of the Layout. However, the BDA Layout also depicted ingress and egress to the I Cross MLA Layout Road which is now totally blocked because of construction made by KKR Vajra Apartments on Plot No.104/155A. The stand of the BBMP is that it had permitted fresh construction in 2005-2006 acting only on the fact that a khata of the erstwhile owner was already in existence and that the BDA had not brought the formation of the Layout to the notice of the BBMP. Prima facie, this argument may not be tenable. The BDA, on the other hand, has not taken any action to ensure that there is no violation of the Layout plan sanctioned by them. Some construction has taken place in Plot Nos.102 and 103 which has been removed/demolished pertaining to what was on the 40 Feet road which in the ordinary course ought to have connectivity with the I Cross MLA Layout Road.
It appears to us that both BBMP as well as BDA have been remiss in the performance of their duties as a result of which, Apartments have come into existence, part of which are on a public road.
It is in these circumstances that we think it would be advisable for the formation of a Special Committee comprising of the 6 Commissioner, BBMP, Commissioner, BDA as well as a Court Commissioner. We appoint Mr.B.Veerappa, learned AGA as the Court Commissioner to be the third Member in this Committee. The Committee shall be empowered to co-opt any other Member. It shall have the power to summon and examine any official either of the BBMP or of the BDA, as is feels necessary. We would also recommend that the Counsel for the Petitioners Smt.Lakshmy Iyengar, who has very assiduously argued the case on behalf of the Petitioners and is completely conversant with the facts of the case, may also be heard by the Committee. We would expect the Committee to give a hearing to Respondent No.4 as well as the owners of Plot No.102 and 103 as also Plot Nos.38 and 39 since some of their construction is to be found on 40 Feet road leading to the I Cross MLA Layout Road. Corrective suggestions must be included in the Report which is finally prepared, with special reference to the solution of access from the MLA Layout to the I Cross MLA Layout Road.
If removal of properties which are an encroachment upon the Road is needed, recommendation to this effect should be made.
The Report be submitted to the Court within three months from today.
Renotify on 21.03.2013.
A copy of this order be furnished to learned counsel for the parties under the signature of the Court Officer attached to this Bench."
4. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the Special Committee has examined the records pertaining to the land in question and also has heard the parties and has 7 submitted a Report to this Court on 15.03.2013. In paragraph 8 of the Report, the Committee has noted certain suggestions which could be in the nature of corrective measures so as to assuage the grievances of the petitioners. Paragraph 8 reads as under:
"8. Now the important question relates to the corrective suggestions to be made for the access from the property of the petitioners to the main road. At the time of our visit, it is brought to our notice that an extent of 33 guntas in Sy.No.1/1 is denotified which is marked in the sketch as A to G. This denotification has practically blocked the 40 ft road lying to the South of site no.13C, 14 to
16. In that event, the owner of the plot in whose favour the said extent is, denotified may block the 40 ft road lying to the South of the plot. This will practically prevent the petitioners from using the road lying to the South of their plot. The Committee cannot ignore the portion denotified. This will lead to another complication namely: this denotification has even blocked the road. If this road is blocked then, the only road that is available is to the East of site of the petitioners property and if one proceeds through this road it takes a turn towards the West and joins the 30 ft road in 1st Cross of Railway mens HBCs and this road again takes a turn to the South and width of this road is 30 ft road and finally reaches the 40 ft road lying to the South of the denotified area and the width of this road is 40 ft and this 40 ft road proceeds further to the East and then takes a turn towards North to join 1st Cross, MLA Layout. Anyhow the width of the road where it joins the 1st Cross, MLA Layout is only 40 ft. If one uses this road from the petitioners property to the 1st Cross of the MLA Layout to the point where KK Vajra Apartment has come up 360 mtrs. this is marked as H to M, whereas if one passes through the road blocked by the KK Apartment, the distance is only 92 mtrs. If the parties agree not to disturb the purchasers of the Flat in KK 8 Apartment, the best option that is left open is to permit petitioners to use the road marked as H to M. This is one of the corrective method can be suggested by the Committee. If this suggestion is not accepted, other alternative suggestion to issue a direction to remove the encroachment of the road portion by ordering the demolition of the constructions that have come up on the road. We also suggest the person in whose favour the area is denotified shall not be permitted to close the existing road that is located to the South of site no.13C. The third option that is left open is if ultimately the suit filed by the person who is in unauthorized occupation of site no.103, is dismissed in that event, the existing road leading from the petitioners property can be diverted through site no.103 and to the land lying to the South of 104 to have an access to the 60 ft wide public road lying to the East marked as N to R in the sketch provided in whose favour the land is denotified."
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent - authorities as well as the private respondents and have considered the Report submitted by the Special Committee pursuant to the order dated 14.12.2012 and we have examined the entire matter in the context of the sketch that had been marked by this Court as Ex.BDA.
6. We find that the grievances of the petitioners with regard to access to the main road could be considered in terms of what has been suggested by the Special Committee at paragraph 8. We, therefore, now direct the respondent - authorities to apply their mind to what has been suggested by 9 the Committee and to construct and make available a road to the residents of the area which would be having connection to the roads on the western side as well as on the southern side.
7. In this context, learned counsel for the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike submitted that efforts have already been made to make available a road through site No.17 and that the said road would be maintained in good condition for the ingress and egress of the residents of that area as well as others.
8. Therefore, we direct the respondent -authorities to take further steps and ensure that the said road is made available to the residents of the MLA Layout in a good condition, in case the said road is not in good repair at present. The respondent -authorities to also consider the other suggestions, particularly what has been stated in paragraph 7 and other contents of the Report and take action in accordance with law.
9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed.
10. At this stage, learned senior counsel appearing for the Executive Engineer -Mohan Gowda submits that by order dated 28.11.2012, this Court had directed issuance of notice 10 to him asking to showcase as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him. He submits that in view of the disposal of the writ petition, those proceedings also may be closed.
11. In the circumstances, we are of the considered view that the respondent -Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike can, at its discretion, decide to initiate action against the concerned Engineer, if so advised. The notice issued by this Court and also the further proceedings which were taken up pursuant to that notice stands closed and dropped.
12. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, all pending applications do not survive for further consideration and are ordered to be filed.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE bkv