Karnataka High Court
Dinesh M Bohra vs The Deputy Commissioner on 28 February, 2025
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:8781
WP No. 2546 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 2546 OF 2025 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. DINESH M BOHRA
S/O MOHANLAL
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
NEELAM TEXTILE M G ROAD,
MUDIGERE CITY AND POST,
MUDIGERE TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577132
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT
CHIKKAMAGALURU-577101
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
Digitally signed by
KIRAN KUMAR R
Location: HIGH COURT
CHIKKAMAGALURU DIVISION
OF KARNATAKA
CHIKKAMAGALURU-577101
3. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ZILLA PANCHAYATH
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577101
4. EXECUTIVE OFFICER
TALUK PANCHAYATH
MUDIGERE TALUK, MUDIGERE
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577132
5. THE TAHSILDAR
MUDIGERE TALUK
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:8781
WP No. 2546 of 2025
MUDIGERE
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577132
6. THE CHIEF OFFICER
TOWN PANCHAYATH
MUDIGERE
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577132
7. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
HALE MUDIGERE GRAM PANCHYAATH
MUDIGERE TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577132
8. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
MUDIGERE POLICE STATION
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577132
9. THE DISTRICT HEALTH OFFICER
PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT,
K M ROAD
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577101
10. SMT PRIYANKA
AGE MAJOR
HUSBAND NAME NOT KNOWN
WORKING AS A ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,
MGM TALUK AND PUBLIC HOSPITAL
MUDIGERE TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.G.BHANUPRAKASH, AAG FOR
SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA., AGA FOR R-1, 2, 5, 8 & 9;
SRI. M.V.RAMESH ROIS, FOR R-10;
SRI. ASHOK N.NAYAK., ADVOCATE FOR R-3, 4 & 7)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1
TO 9 AUTHORITIES TO CONSIDER PETITIONERS
REPRESENTATION EFFECTIVELY MADE ON 24.01.2025 FOR
TAKING NECESSARY IMMEDIATE ACTION FOR CLEAR THE
EXISTING PUBLIC ROAD WHICH HAS BEEN BLOCKED BY THE
ADMINSTRATIVE OFFICER, MGM GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL HALE
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:8781
WP No. 2546 of 2025
MUDIGERE / R-10 AT LAND BEARING SY.NO.46 OF MUDIGERE
TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT PRODUCED AS
ANNEXURE-A TO H, ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
ORAL ORDER
1. The prayer in this writ petition is to direct respondent Nos.1 to 9 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 24.01.2025 whereby the petitioner had requested for taking immediate action to clear the existing public road, which has been blocked by the Administrative Officer, MGM Government Hospital, Hale Mudigere (the 10th respondent).
2. In the said representation, the petitioner basically contended that, a public road was indicated in the layout plan which was the main access to his layout and, therefore, the Hospital Authorities i.e., the 10th respondent could not have blocked that particular portion, which had been earmarked as a road. -4-
NC: 2025:KHC:8781 WP No. 2546 of 2025
3. Learned AAG appearing on behalf of the respondents however contended that, the area earmarked as road was the property of the hospital and the Authority which sanctioned the plan had no right to indicate it as a public road. He submitted that, no direction can be issued to ensure the formation of a road on Government property, when the Government had serious reservations about the claim.
4. He also submits that, the Hospital Authorities in order to safeguard their property have already constructed a compound wall and, therefore, there is no question of removing the compound wall to facilitate the formation of a road for the benefit of the petitioner and his layout.
5. It is not in dispute that, in the layout plan, the area in dispute has been indicated as a road and it is also not in dispute that this is the road, which has access to the petitioner's layout.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:8781 WP No. 2546 of 2025
6. Learned AAG is also right in submitting that, apart from this particular road, there are two other access roads to the layout and, therefore, it cannot be argued that the 9 meter road shown in the plan is the only means of access.
7. Be that as it may, having regard to the fact that the Planning Authority has indicated that there is an existing 9 meter road, which the Government now contends is a part of the property of the hospital, in the larger interest of justice and equity, it would be appropriate to direct the Government to consider conveying this property for the purpose of formation of a 9 meter road, as indicated in the layout plan as Annexure - M, provided the petitioner agrees to pay the market value of the said property.
8. This observation is being made having regard to the fact that a layout has been formed with the expectation that there was a 9 meter road -6- NC: 2025:KHC:8781 WP No. 2546 of 2025 earmarked in the layout plan itself, for having access to the layout.
9. If the Government agrees to convey the property, it is obvious that this particular portion will be earmarked as a road and, which essentially be used only by the public and no private benefit can be gained by the petitioner from the formation of the said road.
10. In am therefore of the view that, it would be appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to give a representation to the 1st respondent to consider granting the area, in which the 9 meter road is earmarked in the layout plan as Annexure - M, subject to the petitioner agreeing to pay the market value for this extent.
11. If the Deputy Commissioner accord such permission, it is needless to state that the Hospital Authorities will have to take necessary action to ensure that -7- NC: 2025:KHC:8781 WP No. 2546 of 2025 there is a road as indicated in the plan. If not, the Hospital Authorities can continue to maintain the compound wall.
12. It is also open for the petitioner to give additional representation to the Deputy Commissioner highlighting the factors which would be relevant for the purpose of ensuring that a road is formed as indicated in the layout plan.
13. This exercise shall be undertaken and completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
14. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
SD/-
(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE GSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6