Karnataka High Court
Mr V Basappa vs State Of Karnataka on 17 September, 2012
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY
WRIT PETITION Nos.13800-801 OF 2011 (LA-BDA)
c/w
WRIT PETITION Nos.13802-803 OF 2011 (LB-BMP)
IN WP NOS. 13800-801 OF 2011:
BETWEEN
1. MR V BASAPPA
S/O VEERANNA
SINCE DECEASED
REP BY HIS LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVES
1A) MRS NAGARATHNA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
1B) MR NAGARAJA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
1C) SHRI VEERANNA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
1D) KUM MANJULA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
1E) KUM VEENA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
ALL ARE CHILDREN OF LATE
MR. V BASAPPA
2
R/AT CHIKKANAHALLI
NANDAGUDI HOBLI
HOSAKOTE TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT
... PETITIONERS
(By SRI RAJESH SHETTIGAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. HARIKRISHNA S HOLLA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
& MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
2. BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
CORPORATION CIRCLE, BANGALORE
REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER
3. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020
REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER
4. BEL HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY
JALAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 013
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
5. ITI EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETY LTD., DOORVANINAGAR
BANGALORE-560 016
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
... RESPONDENTS
(By SRI R B SATYANARAYANA SINGH, HCGP FOR R1
A M VIJAY, ADVOCATE FOR R2
N K RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3
JAYAKUMAR S PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
3
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DECLARE THAT THE ACQUISITION OF SITE NO.28 IN ITI
LAYOUT, NEW BEL ROAD, BANGALORE-560054, FOR THE
PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF STORM WATER DRAIN BY
SECOND RESPONDENT VIDE AWARD DATED 1.3.2011 VIDE
ANNEXURE-L AS NULL AND VOID.
IN WP NOS. 13802-803 OF 2011:
BETWEEN
MR H N SATYANARAYANA GUPTA,
S/O LATE H NARAYANA SHETTY
AGED 66 YEARS
R/AT "SRINIVASA NILAYA"
OPP. FAIR PRICE DEPOT
KALAPPA BLOCK, BASAVANAGUDI TAXI
STAND, BANGALORE
... PETITIONER
(By SRI RAJESH SHETTIGAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. HARIKRISHNA S HOLLA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPT. OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT & MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE.
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
2. BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
CORPORATION CIRCLE, BANGALORE.
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BANGALORE.
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
4. BEL HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY,
JALAHALLI, BANGALORE.
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
4
5. ITI EMPLOYEES HOUSING
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD
DOORAVANINAGAR, BANGALORE
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
... RESPONDENTS
(By SRI R B SATYANARAYANA SINGH, HCGP FOR R1
N K RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2
M B PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3
JAYAKUMAR S PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DECLARE THAT THE ACQUISITION SITE NO.29 IN ITI
LAYOUT, NEW BEL ROAD, BANGALORE-560054, FOR THE
PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION STORM WATER DRAIN BY
SECOND RESPONDENT VIDE AWARD BEARING DATED
1.3.2011 PASSED BY SECOND RESPONDENT VIDE
ANNEXURE-J, AS NULL AND VOID.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Common questions of law and that of fact arise for decision making, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, petitions are clubbed together, finally heard and are disposed off by this order.
2. Petitioners are owners of site Nos. 28 and 29 in ITI Layout formed in Sy.No.2/1, 3/1, 3/3 & 4/2 of Chikkamaranahalli, Bangalore North Taluk, presently New BEL Road, Bangalore - 560054, each measuring 50' x 80' 5 have filed these petitions to declare as null and void, the acquisition of the sites for construction of a storm water drain by the 2nd respondent - Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, for short 'BBMP', and the award dt. 1/3/2011 - Annex.J, in addition to a writ of mandamus to the respondents to construct the storm water drain in the Civic Amenity area shown in the layout plan and to declare as null and void the acquisition of 486 sq.ft. of land for construction of storm water drain by notification dt. 7/8/2010 - Annex.H.
3. Petitions are opposed by filing statement of objections of the 3rd respondent - BDA interalia contending that in the absence of a challenge to the acquisition proceeding or notification of acquisition, writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. According to the learned Counsel for BDA, the challenge to the notice dt. 7/6/2010 - Annex.H having spent itself and in respect of which petitioners have submitted replies following which awards are passed, petitioners are disentitled to the relief. 6
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that cutting of a storm water drain measuring 486 sq.ft. at the edge of each of the sites is unnecessary as it could be accommodated in the civic amenity site located across the street and opposite the petitioners' sites.
5. Sri.N.K.Ramesh, learned Counsel for 2nd respondent - BBMP, submits that statement of objections is filed in the connected petition interalia contending that the cutting of a storm water drain to connect to a larger storm water drain located behind the properties of the petitioners, was necessitated due to water logging in the area. Learned Counsel submits that being a public purpose, petitioners cannot have any grievance over the acquisition. Lastly it is submitted that the cutting of the drain at the edge of site No.28 and 29 when fully covered would cause no inconvenience to both the petitioners.
6. Sri.M.B.Prabhakar, learned Counsel for BDA, submits that the acquisition proceeding was initiated by the Corporation and a decision taken by the Corporation 7 Engineers and therefore the BDA would, technically speaking, have nothing to do with the works carried out by the BBMP.
7. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings, undoubtedly the acquisition is for a public purpose to cut a drain at the northern edge of site No.28 and 29 to connect to a larger drain through which rain water would be discharged so as to overcome water logging in the area. Although learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that a storm water drain could be cut in the civic amenity site located opposite the petitioners' premises, nevertheless the decision as to where the storm water drain is to be located, is best left to the Engineers who have the required expertese, based upon the topography of the land, and having done so, the petitioners cannot content that the storm water drain should be cut in the civic amenity area. Even otherwise cutting the drain at the northern edge of the properties of the petitioners does not cause inconvenience to the 8 petitioners, but would mitigate the sufferings of the residents in the locality due to water logging. In that view of the matter, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is unacceptable and the challenge to the acquisition proceeding rejected.
In the result, petitions devoid of merit, are rejected.
SD/-
JUDGE Rd/-