Karnataka High Court
Pushpam Woods vs Satellite Town Ring Road Development ... on 12 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.7268/2022 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
PUSHPAM WOODS
OWNERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION,
GUDIGATTANAHALLI VILLAGE,
TINDLU-MATTANAHALLI ROAD,
SARJAPURA VILLAGE,
ANEKAL TQ., BENGALURU - 562 125.
REPTD. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
SAIDULU PALVAI,
S/O SRIRAMULU PALVAI,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
PRESIDENT AND TREASURES,
SRI. ARUN SUKU EAPEN,
S/O SUKU EAPEN,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NATARAJ G, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SATELLITE TOWN RING ROAD
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (STRR),
BENGALURU METROPOLITAN
REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
NO.1/AA, ALI ASKER ROAD,
VASANTH NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 052.
2. THE SECRETARY
OFFICE OF THE GRAM PANCHAYATH,
MUGALURU, SARJAPURA HOBLI,
ANEKAL TQ., BENGALURU - 562 125.
-2-
3. THE POLICE INSPECTOR,
BENGALURU METROPOLITAN TASK FORCE
POLICE STATION (BMTF),
N.R. CIRCLE,
BENGALURU - 560 002.
4. M/S PUSHPAM REALITY,
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER
THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT,
REPTED. BY ITS PARTNER
MRS. VEENA R.S,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT:
NO.29 (OLD NO.416), 18TH MAIN,
4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 041.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE NOTICE DATED 13.01.2022 BEING ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ORDER NO.©JAnJ¥sï/Krf¦/¥ÉnµÀ£ï/2022
VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged a notice dated 13.01.2022 issued by the respondent No.3, on a complaint received by it that the petitioner is constructing villas in Sy.Nos.53 and 54 of Gudigattanahalli Village, Sarjapura Hobli, by encroaching Government Karab and pond. -3-
2. The petitioner claims that it is an association of owners of houses in a project developed by 'Pushpam Realty'. The petitioner claims that the development was according to a plan sanctioned by the Bengaluru Metropolitan Region Development Authority. The petitioner claims that the builder had proposed to develop housing project at Sy.No.43/2, 53/2 of Gudigattanahalli, which lay within the limits of the Anekal Development Authority. The petitioner claims that the developer applied for sanction of a plan before the development authority which approved it on 11.06.2012. Thereafter, the developer obtained permission from the Bangalore Metropolitan Region Development Authority (BMRDA) and also a layout plan was sanctioned. The petitioner claims that the project was completed and 112 villas were constructed which were all sold to various persons who are in occupation. The petitioner claims that the entire project was enclosed with a compound wall.
-4-
3. The petitioner alleged that it was surprised to receive a notice dated 27.07.2020, wherein it was alleged that the petitioner had obstructed a road that ran through Sy.No.52/1 and that steps would be taken to remove the obstruction. This was apparently on the basis of a complaint dated 26.12.2019 lodged by a person named Smt. Kanakarathnamma. The attempt made by the petitioner to secure copy of the complaint was of no avail. The petitioner blindly submitted a reply to the notice. Close on the heels of this notice, another notice dated 14.09.2020 was issued, wherein the Panchayath again threatened the petitioner of action for obstructing the way by putting up a compound. When the officers of the petitioner went to the Panchayat to submit a reply, they came to know that the Panchayat was making attempts to demolish the compound wall without even considering the reply of the petitioner. On 28.03.2022, the respondent No.2 along with taskforce and heavy earth moving equipment assembled near the property. When questioned, the petitioner was informed that based on the -5- notice dated 13.01.2022, they were initiating action as the respondent No.4 had allegedly occupied portions of Sy.Nos.53 and 54, which were Karab land. The petitioner informed the officials about the compliances made by the builder and sought time to furnish further proof. The respondent No.3 and the officials relented to the request of the petitioner but threatened to come back. The petitioner therefore filed this writ petition seeking for quashing the notice dated 13.01.2022 issued by the respondent No.3 on various grounds. One of the grounds urged in support of the writ petition is that under Section 17(4) of the Karnataka Town And Country Planning Act, 1961, the planning authority is bound to conduct an enquiry before removing or pulling down any work or restoring the land to its original position.
4. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submitted that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are bound to provide the documents, complaints etc, which is the basis of the action initiated against the project. It is submitted -6- that without conducting an enquiry, the respondent No.3 cannot vandalize or remove the development already done.
5. Since the petitioner has submitted a reply to a notice issued by respondent No.2 dated 27.07.2020, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are bound to consider the reply of the petitioner before taking any further action to demolish the construction.
6. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed off directing the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to hear the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
7. In order to enable the respondent No.2 to decide the issue, the petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent No.2 on 01.08.2022 at 03.00 p.m. along with all the documents. The respondent No.2 shall thereafter decide the issue whether 'Pushpam Woods' has encroached into the property being Karab land in survey -7- Nos.53 and 54 of Gudigattanahalli Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk or blocked any road or pathway.
Until the aforesaid exercise is completed, no action shall be initiated for demolition of any portion. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are at liberty to initiate suitable action thereafter.
Sd/-
JUDGE LL -8- RNJ: W.P.No.7268/2022 01.08.2022 CHAMBER ORDER This Court by order dated 12.07.2022 had directed the petitioner to appear before the respondent No.2 on 01.08.2022 at 3.00 p.m. However, the copy of the order is not released till date. Hence, the petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent No.2 on 10.08.2022 at 3.00 p.m. This order shall form part of the order dated 12.07.2022.
Sd/-
JUDGE PMR