Karnataka High Court
Sri. Chandrappa vs The Assistant Engineer on 12 July, 2018
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B. Veerappa
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA
WRIT PETITION No.27273/2018 (GM-KEB)
Between:
Sri. Chandrappa
S/o. Late Veeranna
Aged about 65 years
R/at No.32/10, 7th Cross
BEML Layout
2nd Stage, Basaveshwara Nagar
Bengaluru-560 079. ...Petitioner
(By Sri.M.Shivaprakash, Advocate)
And:
1.The Assistant Engineer
BESCOM
Sajjepalya (N2-Sub Division)
Ward No.73, Bengaluru-560091.
2.The Assistant Executive Engineer
BESCOM
Sajjepalya (N2-Sub Division)
Ward No.73, Bengaluru-560091.
3.The Executive Engineer
BESCOM
Sajjepalya (N2-Sub Division)
Ward No.73, Bengaluru-560091.
-2-
4. Sharada
W/o. Late Ramaiah
Aged about 65 years.
5.Savitha
W/o. Mahadev
Aged about 40 years.
6.Tejesh Kumar
S/o. Late Ramaiah
Aged about 38 years.
7.Narasimhamurthy
S/o. Late. Ramaiah
Aged about 33 years.
Respondent Nos.4 to 7 are
R/at No.34, 12th Cross
1st Main Road
Kamakshipalaya
(Vrushabhavathi Nagar)
Bengaluru-560079. ...Respondents
(By Sri.G.C.Shanmukha, Advocate for R1 to R3
Sri. H. Suresh, Advocate for R4 to R6 and C/R7)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to call for the records from
the office of R-1 to 3 to respect of property bearing Sy.No.2/3
of Sajjepalya, Yeshwanathapura Hobli, Bengaluru and to
direct against R-1 to 3 not to give power supply or do any act
of electricity supply to the building in question developed in
Survey No.2/3, Sajjepalya, Yeshwanthapura Hobli,
Bangalore.
This writ petition coming on for preliminary hearing
this day, the Court made the following:
-3-
ORDER
The counsel for the petitioner has confined his prayer only to prayer column (c) of the writ petition i.e. to issue a writ of mandamus to direct respondents 1 to 3 to consider the representations made by the petitioner as per Annexures-E2 and E3 dated 28.4.2018 and 3.4.2018 and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the late father of the petitioner had acquired several extent of immovable properties in Saneguruvanahalli, Sajepalya, Sunkadakatte, Srigandadakavalu, Yeshwantpura Hobli, erstwhile revenue jurisdiction of Bangalore North, presently within the jurisdiction of BBMP. The children of late Veeranna i.e. father of the present petitioner had filed the suit for partition of immovable properties in O.S.No.1435/1980 which came to be decreed in the year 1989. In pursuance of the said decree, one of the -4- decree-holder filed final decree proceedings and execution petition before the jurisdictional Court to implement the decree in the year 2005. Respondents 4 to 7 who were well aware of the pendency of the FDP and final decree proceedings and division of undivided interest among the legal heirs of late Veeranna high handedly attempted to put up illegal construction on 25.5.2018 in Survey No.2/3 measuring one acre in Sajjepalya without obtaining licence and sanction plan to commence industry in residential area and hence, the petitioner was constrained to file O.S.No.3413/2018 before the jurisdictional Civil Court for permanent injunction on 19.5.2018, which is still pending.
3. The petitioner had also filed a detailed representation to the concerned authorities and also to the BESCOM to not to give power connection to unauthorized and illegal construction made on Sy.No.2/3 of Sajjepalya Village, in terms of Annexures-E -5- to E3 dated 29.4.2018 and 3.4.2018. However, the respondents have neither considered nor passed any orders on the said representations. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court for writ of mandamus as prayed for.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. Sri.M.Shivaprakash, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition contended that the respondents 4 to 7 have no right in the property bearing Survey No.2/3 totally measuring 2 acres, which is the subject-matter of suit in O.S.No.1435/1980 which came to be decreed in the year 1989 in favour of one Gangappa, elder brother of the petitioner to the extent of 11/16th or 5/27th share in the properties. Therefore, he contends that without any manner of right, title and interest, respondents 4 to 7 have constructed illegal construction and have obtained -6- temporary power connection. Therefore, the authorities ought to have considered the representations of the petitioner as per Annexures-E2 and E3. Since the same has not been considered, till today, he sought to allow the writ petition as prayed for.
6. Per contra, Sri.H. Suresh, learned counsel for respondents 4 to 7 contended that Survey No.2/3 of Sajjepalya, totally measures 2 acres. The decree was granted in favour of the brother of the petitioner namely Gangappa only to an extent of 11/16 or 5/27th share in the suit schedule properties including the property in dispute and that respondents 4 to 7 are the absolute owners of one acre on southern side of the property in question and based on the title deeds they have approached the competent authority and the competent authority considering the material available on record have accorded sanction in accordance with law. -7- Therefore, he has sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
7. Sri.G.C. Shanmukha, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 fairly submits that the representations Annexures-E2 and E3 dated 28.4.2018 and 3.4.2018 if not already considered will be considered and disposed of within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
8. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for respondents 4 to 7, without adverting to the merit and demerit of the contentions urged, it would be suffice to direct respondents 1 to 3 to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 28.4.2018 and 3.4.2018 as per Annexures-E2 and E3 and pass orders in accordance with law.
-8-
9. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is disposed of. The respondents 1 to 3 are directed to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 28.4.2018 and 3.4.2018 as per Annexures-E2 and E3 after affording an opportunity to both the parties to file objections, pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. All the contentions of petitioner and respondents 4 to 7 are left open to be urged before the authorities in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.
SD/-
JUDGE *alb/-.