Karnataka High Court
Mr Somashekar vs State Of Karnataka on 26 April, 2025
Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:17477
WP No. 35525 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
WRIT PETITION NO. 35525 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
1. MR SOMASHEKAR
S/O. RAMA KRISHNA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
FLAT NO.16.3.1.1, T-16,
SHRIRAM SAMEEKSHA,
KUVEMPU NAGAR,
JALAHALI EAST,
BANGALORE - 560 013.
2. MR.RAGHAVENDRA L. PULSAY,
S/O. LAXMANRAO PULSAY,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
Digitally signed 404 ROYAL MEADOWS,
by VIJAYA P
Location: HIGH ROYAL ENCLAVE LAYOUT,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
SRIRAMPURA, JAKKUR,
BANGALORE - 560 064.
3. MR.SUJOY ROY
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
64, 1ST FLOOR, PIPE LINE ROAD,
NETAJI CIRCLE, MATHIKERE,
BANGALORE - 560 054.
4. MR. SREENATH
S/O. SRI. ADINARAYANA CHINTHAKUNTLA,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:17477
WP No. 35525 of 2024
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
#44, 4TH CROSS,
SINGAPURA BRINDAVANA LAYOUT,
SINGAPURA,
BANGALORE - 560 090
5. SMT.SHILPA. J,
D/O. SRI.JAYARAM REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
#40/3, 3RD CROSS, TRIVENI ROAD,
K.N.EXTENSION, YESHWANTHPUR,
BANGALORE - 560 090.
6. MR.S.HARISH,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
#120/Y, 3RD BLOCK, RAJAJI NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 090.
7. SMT.J.SUJATHA,
W/O. LATE.R.JAYAKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
#2431, 10TH MAIN, 2ND STAGE,
'E' BLOCK, RAJAJI NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 010.
8. SMT.SHAMBHAVI.S,
W/O. SRI.HARSHA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
#28, 'PRAHARSHA', ABBIGERE,
BANGALORE - 560 090.
9. SMT.SUMITHRAMMA,
W/O. LATE.K.R.GOPALA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/A. 'ANIL GIRISH NILAYA',
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:17477
WP No. 35525 of 2024
11TH MAIN, RAGHAVENDRA LAYOUT,
BEHIND RAMA TEMPLE,
KAMMAGONDANAHALLI,
JALAHALLI WEST,
BANGALORE - 560 015.
10. SRI. NAVEEN KUMAR.S,
S/O. SRI.SIDDE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/A. NO.257, 9TH CROSS, 3RD BLOCK,
D GROUP LAYOUT, ANDRAHALLI ROAD,
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 560 091.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. GURUDATH. V. R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
HUDSON CIRCLE,
N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU - 560 002.
3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (BBMP),
BBMP HEAD OFFICE,
HUDSON CIRCLE, N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU - 560 002.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:17477
WP No. 35525 of 2024
4. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENTAL AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BENGALURU - 560 020.
5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
REPRESENTED BY ITS ENGINEER MEMBER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENTAL AUTHORITY,
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST,
BENGALURU - 560 020.
6. BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TASK FORCE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADD. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
BBMP HEAD OFFICE BUILDING,
HUDSON CIRCLE, N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU - 560 002.
7. SHRINIKETH LAYOUT WELFARE ASSOCIATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.94,
5TH CROSS, SHRINIKETH LAYOUT,
SINGAPURA GARDEN,
VIDYARANYAPURA POST,
SINGAPURA VILLAGE,
BENGALURU 560097.
REGISTERED UNDER REGISTER OF
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY.
ALSO AT: NO.100, 5TH CROSS,
SHRINIKETH LAYOUT, SINGAPURA GARDEN,
VIDYARANYAPURA POST,
SINGAPURA VILLAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 097.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:17477
WP No. 35525 of 2024
8. SINGAPURA GARDEN RESIDENTS
WELFARE ASSOCIATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.96,
4TH MAIN, 5TH CROSS,
SINGAPURA GARDEN,
VIDYARANYAPURA POST,
SINGAPURA VILLAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 097
REGISTERED UNDER REGISTER OF
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3;
SRI K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5;
SRI SIDDHARTH SUMAN, ADVOCATE FOR R7;
SRI BOPANNA BELLIAPPA, AGA FOR R1 & R6;
R8 - SERVED)
***
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) DIRECTING THE
R1 TO 6 TO REMOVE THE OBSTRUCTION/COMPOUND WALL
PUT UP BY THE R7 IN THE LAYOUT ON THE 4TH CROSS ROAD
TO ENABLE THE PETITIONERS TO APPROACH THEIR PROPERTY
/ LAYOUT AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:17477
WP No. 35525 of 2024
ORAL ORDER
Petitioners have sought for appropriate writ to direct respondents No. 1 to 6 to remove the obstruction / compound wall put up by respondent No.7 in the layout on the 4th cross road in order to enable the petitioners to approach their property / layout. For the purpose of completeness, the prayer made in the writ petition reads as follows:
(a) Issue a writ of appropriate nature i.e., mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 to 6 to remove the obstruction / compound wall put up by the 7th respondent in the layout on the 4th cross road to enable the petitioners to approach their property / layout.
(b) Issue a writ of appropriate nature i.e., mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 to 6 to take action against the 7th respondent for having put up compound wall on the public road, in order to secure the ends of justice.
(c) Issue a writ or direction or order in the nature
of mandamus declaring that the 7th
respondent has no authority under law to -7- NC: 2025:KHC:17477 WP No. 35525 of 2024 obstruct the right of way provided in their layout, after having relinquished the roads and parks in favour of 4th respondent under a registered relinquishment deed 25.06.2009 as per Annexure-D.
(d) Issue such other writ or order or direction that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the above case including the cost of the Writ Petition.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the owners of Sites bearing Nos. 34, 35, 36, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46 and 47 of Brindavan Layout formed in covered land in Sy. No.61/4 (Old Sy. No. 61/2) of Singapura Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk; that kathas have been transferred to their names by the respondent - BBMP and they have been enjoying their property. It is submitted that their assertion of ownership rights is evidenced by the tax paid receipts produced at Annexures-E1 to E8.
3. It is the specific case of the petitioners that towards the Northern side of the petitioners' property, 7 th -8- NC: 2025:KHC:17477 WP No. 35525 of 2024 respondent has formed a layout in Sy. Nos. 74(P), 73(P), 72/1(P), and 60/2(P) of Singapura Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. It is further submitted that there are certain roads shown in the layout plan of the 7 th respondent.
4. It is asserted that the 7th respondent has registered a relinquishment deed dated 25.06.2009 in favour of respondent No.5 i.e., BDA. Accordingly, it is submitted that the 7th respondent has no right over the said road relinquished in favour of the respondent - BDA.
5. It is asserted by the petitioners that the petitioners have access to their property through 4 th cross road of the 7th respondent layout which has been blocked by raising a wall measuring 25 feet in width and 7 to 8 feet height. Photographs have been produced at Annexures-F1 and F2.
6. Petitioners submit that they have made complaint to respondents 2 to 6 in terms of the -9- NC: 2025:KHC:17477 WP No. 35525 of 2024 representations at Annexures - A to C. It is the specific plea of the petitioners that their access to pass through 4th cross road has been blocked by putting up a compound wall. The representations at Annexures-A to C are on same lines and have identical assertions. In light of the facts as made out above, petitioners have sought for the reliefs extracted above.
7. Sri. Gurudath V R, learned counsel for the petitioners asserts that once the roads have been relinquished to the Planning Authority and thereafter handed over to the BBMP, the 7th respondent has no right to block the ingress and egress to the road which in effect has the characteristic of a public road. Reliance is placed on the order of the Division Bench in the case of Classic Orchards Property Owners Association and others vs. State of Karnataka and others - W.A.Nos. 3384- 3337/2016 disposed off on 21.10.2016. Petitioners have also placed reliance on the orders of the Division Bench in W.A.No. 1426/2023 disposed off on
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17477 WP No. 35525 of 2024 04.12.2023 as well as in W.A.No.61/2023 disposed off on 24.11.2023.
8. Sri. Siddharth Suman, learned counsel appearing for the 7th respondent on the other hand would contend that the order passed in the case of Classic Orchards (Supra) refers to gated community and that is not the case of the 7th respondent. It is stated that the 7th respondent has never asserted that its layout is in the nature of gated community. It is further contended that the Division Bench in the case of Sri. Pabba Reddy Kodandarami Reddy vs. M/s. Upkar Residences Pvt. Ltd. and others - W.A.No.61/2023 disposed off on 24.11.2023 has referred to Condition No.11 which was imposed while granting of plan which provided for not putting up of any obstruction as regards access to neighbouring property owners, and unless such condition is present in the plan, the observations made in Classic Orchards (Supra) cannot be extended to the present factual matrix.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17477 WP No. 35525 of 2024
9. Learned counsel for the 7th respondent has produced copy of the plan and submits that there is no condition No.11 as referred to in the case of Sri. Pabba Reddy Kodandarami Reddy (Supra).
10. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the 7th respondent that the petitioners have no locus standi as the identity of the property is not ascertainable and that petitioners themselves do not have an approved layout plan and if that were to be so, petitioners are not entitled to claim any relief in exercise of writ jurisdiction, which is a discretionary relief. It is submitted that the petitioners have to demonstrate that they have come to the Court with clean hands and deserve to be granted relief.
11. Sri. K. Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - BDA would submit that there is no concept of Gated Community and even otherwise, question of putting up of any obstruction insofar as the property
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17477 WP No. 35525 of 2024 relinquished to the Planning Authority does not arise as consequent to the relinquishment deed, property vests with the BDA. It is further submitted that the areas that have been relinquished while approving the layout plan in favour of the planning authority have been handed over to the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike for its upkeep and maintenance and it is for the respondent - BBMP to take action in the event any grievance is made out regarding blocking of the road.
12. Accordingly, it is submitted that if there is any obstruction put up by 7th respondent on the property that is relinquished in favour of the BDA, the same is liable to be removed by the BBMP. The submission of the learned counsel for the BBMP and the learned counsel for the planning authority that once the road area is relinquished by the developer to the planning authority, it takes the characteristic of a public road requires acceptance. Learned counsel for the respondent - Planning Authority
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17477 WP No. 35525 of 2024 submits that such condition is usually placed in the work orders.
13. Sri. Pawan Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent - BBMP would submit that there is no concept of gated community and even otherwise, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the Planning Authority, there cannot be any obstruction of a road relinquished in favour of the Planning Authority. It is specifically asserted that the property that is relinquished in favour of the Planning Authority is a property that is vested with the Planning Authority and is now handed over to the BBMP. It is submitted that such property that is relinquished if demarcated as a road in the layout plan has the characteristic of public road and there cannot be any obstruction of access to it, whether any condition is imposed in the layout plan or not. Reliance is again placed on the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Classic Orchards (Supra).
14. Heard both sides.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17477 WP No. 35525 of 2024
15. It is the case of the petitioners that in terms of the representations at Annexures-A to C, they are the residents of property on the Southern side of the property of the 7th respondent and their access has been blocked by putting up of a compound wall across the road which has been relinquished in favour of the respondent - Planning Authority. Averments are made in the writ petition regarding the location of their property and that the property is formed in Sy. No.61/4.
16. Perused the relinquishment deed at Annexure- D. The relinquishment deed provides details of the road area in the schedule. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the road in the 4th cross as found in the schedule to the relinquishment deed has been blocked. The details of the 4th cross road that has been relinquished are found in the relinquishment deed. The contention of the petitioners that the area of property relinquished to the planning authority is a property vested with the
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17477 WP No. 35525 of 2024 planning authority and if property is relinquished for the purpose of road, the same cannot be obstructed by the 7th respondent, requires acceptance.
17. Such assertion is supported by the leaned counsel for respondent - BBMP as well as the learned counsel for the Planning Authority. No doubt, learned counsel for the 7th respondent has referred to the order in W.A.No.61/2023 in the case of Sri. Pabba Reddy Kodandarami Reddy (Supra) and submits that the Court has referred to the incorporation of condition No.11 while sanctioning the layout plan. It must be noticed that the observations made by the Division Bench in the case of Sri. Pabba Reddy Kodandarami Reddy (Supra) must not be read out of context. A plain reading of the order in the case of Classic Orchards (Supra) would reveal that the Court has taken a view that once the layout comes under the Authority, the general public will have free ingress and egress to the roads within the layout.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17477 WP No. 35525 of 2024
18. It must be noticed that once the layout is approved, condition would require relinquishment deed to be executed. Once a relinquishment deed is executed, such of the property which is the subject matter of the relinquishment deed including roads would stand vested with the planning authority in terms of the relinquishment deed. Subsequent to its vesting with the planning authority and area including roads are handed over for maintenance to the Municipal Authority, it is the duty of the Municipal Authority to ensure that there are no obstructions put up on such roads, as such roads constitute public property. The developer does not have any right to claim a particular manner of restricting use to such roads in the layout which have been relinquished to the planning authority.
19. Though it is the contention raised at the time of arguments by the learned counsel appearing for the 7th respondent that the necessity for putting up of a compound around the layout is in order to ensure security
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17477 WP No. 35525 of 2024 of its inmates, it must be observed that such concern cannot outweigh the rights of public access of residents, even if they reside outside the layout. The roads in the layout cannot be confined so as to prevent access to it from outside the layout. The access to a public road cannot be construed to be access being limited only to the residents of the layout. The public access by its very nature is access to all including residents outside the layout.
20. Insofar as the further contention of the learned counsel for the 7th respondent that the petitioners themselves do not have a layout plan and unless the petitioners demonstrate that their property is developed as per plan, they are not entitled for relief at the hands of the Court, requires to be rejected. Irrespective of the nature of development of the petitioners' property, once a road is a public road as observed above, question of any obstruction by the 7th respondent does not arise. It must also be noticed that the petitioners have made specific
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17477 WP No. 35525 of 2024 assertion regarding the situation of their property and the same has been supported by a verifying affidavit. There is no reason to doubt the identity of the petitioners' property as averred in the writ petition.
21. With the above observations, petition is disposed off. A direction is issued to the respondent - BBMP to take note of the representations to conduct a site visit and proceed further. If it is found that the roads which are the subject matter of relinquishment deed in favour of the respondent - BDA and handed over to the BBMP is obstructed by the 7th respondent which has the effect of restricting access through the roads in the layout even though the persons claiming access are residents outside such layout, in such event obstruction to be removed. While considering the direction, respondent - BBMP cannot again reopen any issue which stands answered by the observations made above. Such action and direction by the respondent - BBMP to be concluded within a period of 3 months from today. In the event there
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17477 WP No. 35525 of 2024 is any further delay, respondent - BBMP is specifically directed to seek for extension of time before this Court and otherwise the direction ought to be implemented within the time limit prescribed.
22. Accordingly, petition is disposed off.
Sd/-
(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VP