Karnataka High Court
Smt Subbalakshmamma vs Bangalore Development on 31 August, 2015
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST 2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY
WRIT PETITION NOS.52241-52243 OF 2014 (BDA)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SUBBALAKSHMAMMA
D/O.RAMAKRISHNAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
NO.35, 11TH CROSS, MALLATHAHALLI,
BANGALORE-560056.
2. SMT VEENA
W/O.ASHWATHNARAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
NO.110, 11TH CROSS, MALLATHAHALLI,
BANGALORE-K560056.
3. SMT MANJULA
W/O. RAMAKRISHNAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
NO.27, 8TH CROSS, MALLATHAHALLI,
BANGALORE-K560056.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MADHUKAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
ESTABLISHED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
ACT, 1976, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BANGALORE-560020.
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
2
2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
BDA COMMERCIAL COMPLEX,
VIJAYANAGARA,
BANGALORE-560040.
3. MR SHIVANANDAPPA
S/O.FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
BDA COMMERCIAL COMPLEX,
VIJAYANAGARA,
BANGALORE-560040.
4. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
NO.3, WEST SUB-DIVISION,
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
BDA COMMERCIAL COMPLEX,
VIJAYANAGARA,
BANGALORE-560040.
5. MR ISMILE
S/O.NOT KNOWN,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
NO.3, WEST SUB-DIVISION,
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
BDA COMMERCIAL COMPLEX,
VIJAYANAGARA,
BANGALORE-560040.
6. ASSISTANT ENGINEER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
BDA COMMERCIAL COMPLEX,
VIJAYANAGARA,
BANGALORE-560040.
7. MR SHASHIKIRAN
S/O.NOT KNOWN,
AGED ABOUT 53 YERS,
ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
3
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
BDA COMMERCIAL COMPLEX,
VIJAYANAGARA,
BANGALORE-560040.
8. MR. JAGANNATH RAI,
MAJOR,
POLICE INSPECTOR,
JAGRUTH DAL, B.D.A.,
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BANGALORE-560 020.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 AND R2)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ROUGH SKETCH ANNEXED
TO THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 30.6.2014 [RECEIVED ON
15.10.2014 VIDE ANN-Y] ISSUED BY R-4 AND ETC;
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The allegation, as aired by learned counsel for petitioners, that, respondent/Bangalore Development Authority ('BDA' for short) despite having issued an endorsement that a particular sketch is not prepared by the Authority, nevertheless, interfered with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of 1 acre 11 guntas out of 4 4 acres 11 guntas of petitioners' land, is said to be the cause of action for presenting these petitions.
2. Learned counsel for respondent/BDA submits that 2nd petitioner instituted O.S.No.25688/2013 pending on the file of City Civil Court, Bengaluru, for injunction, restraining some private parties as well as the 'BDA' from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property.
3. In that view of the matter, it is for the petitioners to secure necessary orders of the said Civil Court before whom the suit is pending for injunctory reliefs. Petitions rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE kcm