Satish B L S/O Lakshmaiah vs M/S Bagmane Developers Private Limited on 20 July, 2009

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Satish B L S/O Lakshmaiah vs M/S Bagmane Developers Private Limited on 20 July, 2009

Bench: P.D. Dinakaran

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 20"' DAY OF JULY 2009
PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. P.D. DINAKARAN, CHIEF   

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ,=§.As.i:Eso.EA:\r:vAi[j   g_ 

WRIT PETITION N0. 1727.3_/20{V)O8{GM-RESFPITE1 "   A

BETWEEN:

1.

Satish B.L.,

S/0. Lakshmaiah,
Aged about 26 years,
Residing at No.62," _
Byrasandra Viiiage,'1,_.'* ._ .
C.V. Raman !\_i.a--g'ar ¥?ljc_J_S;t, 'V '
Banga|ore~S6D 093,. 

. M. sampén9apBa;'a'ETfﬁ"  

Aged about 80 years,'   
(Senior Citizen Benefit notﬁaimed)
Residing at No.82/1,»  '

.V .Chowde_swari Tem'pIweR_oad,
 Byras'andraVi'i!age, '

"C.V, "RaVm.an%Nag'ar_ Post,

Ba.ngaiore§?§O 093;.

V. Ram__e A
Aged abou'ta63 years,

" i;'ﬂ.__Residing at '10,
 ' Bfyrasandra Viliage,
   CA/.'Rat5nan Nagar Post,
'-  -Ban'gaiore-560 093..



4. Muniraju,

S/0. Late Munigundappa,
Aged about 50 years,
Residing at 34,
Byrasandra Viiiage,

C.V. Raman Nagar Post,
Bangalore-S60 093.

5. N. Govinda Reddy,

S/o. Late Nagappa Reddy,

Aged about 54,   
Byrasandra Viliage,  
C.V. Raman Nagar Post,

Bangaiore-560 093.

6. B.V. Srinivas,

S/o. Late Venkatappa,

Aged about 40,

Byrasandra Viilage, ._ 
C.V. Raman |\iagar,Post,  '
Bangalore-S60 0.93,  1

7. Mr. B.K.   » '
S/o. A.B.a KrEshinappa,i._ ' 
Aged about 27 years',-.__ A   A
Residing at[\|o.1S,  '  .  
"Lakshmi Nivas",.3'" 
Bhuvaneshwari'nagar," '
 Raman Nagar'*Post,.v
 B'angaiore¥56U..O93. .. PETITIONERS

(B{sEi.,s:P;. s;a.:,g5p,ra:<asn -- Adv. for Petrs.)

AND

 ,Bagzrn_a'ne Developers Private Limited,

Bagmia.ne Business Tech Park,

A  _La--ngfo.rd Garden, Bangaiore--560 025,

*~By'Ets Managing Director

E _

1

 .,,.Jj:4M.r,.'Raja Bagmane.  .

;
(,3
LM»



2. Lake Development Authority,
No.49, II Fioor, Parisara Bhavan,
Church Street,
Bangalore--S60 O01,
Represented by its Chief Executive Officer.

3. The Karnataka State Poilution Control Board,   .
Pubiic Utility Building,    I 
M.G. Road, Bangalore,

Represented by its Chairman.

4. Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Pa._i_ik~e,
Hudson Circle,  '
Bangalore,
by its Commissioner.

5. State of Karnataka,

By its Secretary,  _ ;_     :
Department of ivfincire~1'rrig'atiéin",' _'   

M.S. BuiIdin9Sn"       A

Dr. Ambedkarx/e~e_d;hi, " '   ._  
Banga|ore.~--560,C~D1.'i::;.    .. RESPONDENTS

(By Sri. Udaya Holia 4' Sr, iCou'n_s"ei_for Sri. Mahabaieshwara_G~oud "~:A'dv. for R.1 Sri. H.S. Sachidananda G.o"wd-a --~ Adv. for R.2 Sri. Ashokv Harana.haili'---- Adv. General for R.4 _.--Sri. Sai.hyanarayana*'Singh --- Adv. for R3 *,S:'n-t. N'i=iouf'a*r Akbar -- Addi. Govt. Adv. for R.5) A'riﬂes.wrrtlbetigtiialn is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the v._""'Constitut-i.,on _of_India praying that this Court be pleased to "7._(a)' declare and hold that the construction of the compiex by the ""--«first'responde.nt in khatha No.65/2 within the catchment area of .: =.Keiajginai<ere lake (Sy.No.112) of C.V. Raman Nagar Post, "=Byra'sa'ndra' Village, is contrary and in utter violation of the onA-A"_V~..zon.i*ng'*regulation, CDP prepared and published under Section 14 'o'l_'"'=..t,he' Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act and , i X:

5""

E 4 consequently order demolition of the building constructed on the encroached portion of the lakes catchment/embankment area;

(b) declare and hold that the construction being carried o_n and sanction of licence is not in compiiance of the statutory requirements of the zoning regulations 2(j) wherein marmiatory pollution clearance from the State Pollution Control~«~.8oa.rd 'has not been obtained and hence contravening the said pro'vi'sior.*s;l~, and etc., This Writ Petition coming up for Prelinxjiri~ary"He'aring' day, the Court delivered the follovvin_g: . Av JUDGMENT= (delivered by"'P;tD,. l;'l__"§V|<a'r"E:'Vfif c;i,,) The petitionr-;f'rS',;"s;ig\ii'§'ho laregresideints'wof_.iC.V. Raman Nagar, Bangalore, are 'public for preservation and protection of'iiieylaginake're:'_'iake,mwherein, illegai construction and encroach'rne'nt are.being*d:o'n.e"on the eastern side of the lake and its catchment/em'b.a'*nkrne«n.t area.

i Accoi*dinTg'*»to the petitioners, the first respondent has vviolated.'theu'Vzo.hg:a|'regulations while constructing the complex in khatha i~io...6"$[2'within the catchment area of Kelaginakere lake C.V. Raman Nagar Post, Byrasandra Village, _l3'a.ng"alore East Taluk, which is contrary and in utter violation of /?"'""€ .

,//« 5 \ E, Z, _.

E : . 3"

L.»-§*' 5 the zoning regulation, CDP prepared and published under Section 14 of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act. The further case of the petitioners is that the first :*es'po'n:dent has violated the zoning reguiations 2(j) which is not obtaining pollution clearance from thestate Pol"lu'ti'on' C_o.nt'r--ol ' Board and that they have also put constructions by encroaching iakeiin Despite the petitioners bringing 'tit-his.."g_fact.t__to the---not'ice of the concerned authorities it.::ftep.resentations, the respondent--authorities,for:'fégsgonsjjt'b:e_stV.i<n'ewn to them, have not taken any first 'respondent. Hence the petitioners hot-herv"§Vaiternative and effective remedy to the wilful and deliberate violation/encroachment._by first respondent, have come up with tnterestlitigation, seeking:

;('a~),tdec'l'are:"and hold that the construction of the first respondent in khatha No.65/2 wi'thinv_."uhej'.= catchment area of Kelaginakere lake (Sy.No;112) of C.V. Raman Nagar Post, Byrasandra Viliiage is contrary and in utter violation of the zoning '.regu'lation, CDP preparedand published under ._Section 14 of the Karnataka Town and Country « t A. 7 made any encroachment into any of the portions as alleged by the petitioners; the schedule lands where the said respondent has put up the Software Tech Park is not in the catcli'rnVerijt.,:atea of the Jake but is below the tank---bed and it is about wort. away from the lake. It:-iis"Fu.rtheAr that the ' petitioner have come up with the abovlewr.i_tA'petition'~to to their terms as the said responde,jn't..,has'promotedVausiucciessfull commercial venture.

4. Heard the learn.e.cf'_A:couV.ns.el petitioner, Mr. Udaya Holla, learVnjed":f3:e'nio;i*'Counsel on behalf of Mr. Mahabaleshwarav. for the first respondent, Mr. H.S. counsel appearing for the second res'pondVent:.LVa:kelU"~..,:_:':,l3é\/elopment Authority, Mr. SathyanarayanaﬁuSingVh',."'lea"rned counsel appearing for the third resi5onde'nt-TilediiarnatalltiaiwState Pollution Control Board, Mr. AshuokxH-aren,a*ha'lli_,j-Advocate General appearing for the fourth 1'.T""'responde.nt-E§ruh,la~tA Bangalore Mahanagara_ Palike and "~3§'S'm_tV.'*rNilgoufarﬁkbar -- Addi. Government Advocate appearing for and perused the materials placed on record.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court