M Gangappa vs The Commissioner on 9 August, 2012

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

M Gangappa vs The Commissioner on 9 August, 2012

Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy

                           1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

       DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012

                        BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY

      WRIT PETITION NO. 16942 OF 2010(LB-BMP)


BETWEEN

M GANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA
R/AT NO.1 (OLD NO.4 LATER 1140
AND THERE AFTER 1469)
WARD NO. 24, 6TH CROSS,
BANDIREDDYPALYA, SRIRAMPURA,
BANGALORE.
                                       ... PETITIONER

(By M/S. A N N ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.    THE COMMISSIONER
      B.B.M.P, BANGALORE

2.    THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
      DIVISION NO.61, SRIRAMPURA,
      BANGALORE.

3.    VENUGOPAL
      AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
      R/AT NO.1470, WARD NO. 24,
      6TH CROSS, BANDIREDDYPALYA,
                           2




     SRIRAMPURA, BANGALORE

4.   ANAND
     AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
     S/O B.K KRISHNA REDDY
     R/AT NO.1471, WARD NO. 24,
     6TH CROSS, BANDIREDDYPALYA
     SRIRAMPURA, BANGALORE

5.   SREEDHAR
     AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
     R/AT NO.6, WARD NO 24,
     6TH CROSS, BANDIREDDYPALYA
     SRIRAMPURA, BANGALORE-21.
                                      ... RESPONDENTS

(By Sri. M N RAMANJANEYA GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2
       SRI. T KODANDARAMA, ADVOCATE FOR R4
       R3 & 5 - SERVED - UNREPRESENTED )

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 TO REMOVE THE ILLEGAL
CONSTRUCTION MADE BY THE RESPONDENT NO.5 PUT UP ON
B SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND DIRECT TO REMOVE THE STONE
SLAB AND IRON GATE ERECTED ON C SCHEDULE PROPERTY
BY THE 3RD AND 4TH RESPONDENTS AND REMOVE THE ANY
ILLEGAL OR UNAUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT
LEAVING SETBACK AREAS OR OTHERWISE IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE BUILDING BYLAWS OF THE CORPORATION OF THE
CITY OF BANGALORE; AND ETC.

      THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                     ORDER

Even according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, a large property when sub-divided into 3 smaller portions, one such portion is purchased by the petitioner under the sale deed dt.13.12.2002 Annexure- A whereunder the schedule indicates common passage as one of the boundaries.

2. Section 17 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 provides for sanction of sub-division of plot. Subsection (1) mandates that a person who intends to sub-divide his plot or lay-out a private street on or after the date of publication of the Comprehensive Development Plan under subsection (1) of Section 10 shall submit a layout plan with prescribed particulars for sanction.

3. In the absence of any material over sanction of sub-division of the plot by the petitioner's vendor so as to form smaller sites providing a common passage, it is needless to state that the existence or otherwise of the 4 said common passage cannot be conveniently adjudicated in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. The further question as to whether respondents 3 to 5 have put up construction on the common passage, being one of fact, falls for decision making after an adjudication by a competent Civil Court having jurisdiction.

In the circumstances, petitioner must stand relegated to a competent civil Court to have his grievance redressed.

The petition is accordingly rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE Ln

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court