Karnataka High Court
Sri P Rohith Reddy vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 October, 2021
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M. Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.51979 OF 2019 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI P.ROHITH REDDY
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
S/O P.R.CHENNA REDDY,
R/A NO.2-A, THOMAS MANOR,
NO.88, RICHMOND ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 025.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE
(VIDEO CONFERENCING))
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
J.L.B. ROAD, MYSURU - 570 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. MYSURU CITY CORPORATION
MYSURU - 570 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
2
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY
AND SEWERAGE BOARD
SARASWATHI PURAM,
NEAR WOMAN'S COLLEGE,
MYSURU - 570 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA FOR R1 (PHYSICAL
HEARING)
SRI T.P.VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (PHYSICAL
HEARING)
SMT.M.P.GEETHA DEVI, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI YOGESH D.NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-
2, 3 AND 4 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE
PETITIONER DATED 11.05.2016, 24.12.2016, 04.01.2018 AND
22.10.2019, 27.10.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-F, G, H, J AND
ANNEXURE-K RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 01.09.2021, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING :-
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayers:
"(a) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents 2, 3 and 4 to consider representations of the petitioner 3 dated 11-05-2016, 24-12-2016, 04.01.2018, 22-10-2019 and 27-10-2019 vide Annexure-F, G, H, J and Annexure-K respectively.
(b) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents immediately stop discharge of sewage and rain water into the lands of the petitioner in Sy.No. 24 and Sy.No.26 of Chikkaharadanahalli Village, Mysore Taluk.
(c) Issue a writ of mandamus to construct storm water drain and underground drainage as per the survey sketch at Annexure-C and village map at Annexure-E and further to remove the silt filled inside the sewerage manholes constructed in the lay-out formed by respondent No.2 to enable free flow of sewage water.
(d) Pass such other orders as may be deemed appropriate under the circumstances of the case, in the ends of justice."
2. Heard Sri Shivaprasad Shantanagoudar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Prathima Honnapura, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1, Sri T.P. Vivekananada, learned counsel for respondent No.2, Smt. M.P.Geetha Devi, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Sri Yogesh D.Naik, learned counsel for respondent No.4. 4
3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:-
The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner and in possession of land to an extent of 0.37 guntas in Sy.No. 24 and 3 acres and 31 guntas in Sy.No.26, in all measuring 4 acres and 28 guntas, in Chikkaharadanahalli Village, Mysore Taluk on account of purchase through a sale deed dated 8-11-2002 which came to be registered on 11-12-2002. Prior to the petitioner purchasing the said property, the property was subject matter of acquisition proceedings and was subsequently dropped from acquisition by way of de-notification order dated 15-07-1999 by the State Government. Acquisition or de-notification is not the issue in these proceedings.
4. After purchase of the said property, the petitioner applied for conversion of the land from agriculture to non- agricultural purposes which was also granted on 12-02-2004 by the competent authority. Pursuant to conversion from 5 agriculture to residential purpose, the petitioner sought approval for formation of a private layout and obtained sanction for the said purpose on 19-10-2004. The 2nd respondent/Mysuru Urban Development Authority ('MUDA' for short) formed a layout adjacent to the land that is purchased by the petitioner of a vast extent comprising of several survey numbers which is located in a little higher gradient on the eastern side of the land of the petitioner. To demonstrate the same, the petitioner has appended a sketch of the village to the writ petition. To the west of Sy.No.26 which is owned by the petitioner, the layout formed by MUDA is situated which is in Sy.No.30.
5. It appears that MUDA after formation of layout has handed over the same to the Mysore City Corporation ('the Corporation' for short). Both in tandem i.e., MUDA and the Corporation have laid a storm water drain in the layout formed by them which is adjacent to the property of the petitioner. The said storm water drain is not completed. The incomplete 6 storm water drain stops at the edge of Sy.No.26 which is the western side land of the petitioner.
6. The problem that generated due to incomplete storm water drain being so alarming that every time during the season of rain the entire storm water flows into the land of the petitioner as it is not linked to any other storm water drain. As the storm water drain laid by 2nd and 3rd respondents stops at the edge of the property of the petitioner, the storm water enters into the property of the petitioner resulting in petitioner doing nothing in the land that he has purchased. On account of such an act where the storm water is not let into any outlet, the sewage emanating from the land of respondents 2 and 3 completely gets into the land of the petitioner. Faced with these difficulties, the petitioner submitted representations and caused legal notices as well.
7. The legal notices were caused upon all the respondents on 11-05-2016, 24-12-2016, 4.01.2018, 22-10-2019 and 27.10.2019. These notices were caused to be issued in terms of 7 the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 and the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. Finally, the petitioner also lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional police on 25-10-2019 reiterating and highlighting the problems that are faced due to storm water entering into his land. The photographs appended to the writ petition would also demonstrate the problem that is faced by the petitioner. The petitioner is before this Court seeking consideration of his grievance as vented out in the notices that are issued (supra) and the complaint dated 25.10.2019. Those notices and the complaint having gone unheeded, the petitioner has knocked the doors of this Court in the subject writ petition.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the facts narrated hereinabove and taking this Court through the photographs that are appended to the writ petition would submit that the property of the petitioner has not been able to develop the land due to entire storm water and sewage water entering into the land of the petitioner and any amount of 8 representations for the last 15 years and legal notices have not woken up the respondents to set right the problem that the petitioner is facing in his property.
9. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would admit that storm water drain has stopped at the edge of the property of the petitioner. He would submit that the petitioner has to relinquish certain portion of his property for the storm water to move out for completing the construction of storm water drain and such relinquishment of land of the petitioner should be given free of cost, as it is for public purpose. He would submit that the property in which MUDA has formed layout was formed as early as in the year 1988-89 and knowing full well that storm water drain stops at the edge of his property, the petitioner has chosen to purchase the same and if he has chosen to purchase it, the petitioner cannot now make a hue and cry for the storm water free flow to his land.
9
10. MUDA has also placed certain sketch and map with regard to the drain area in the property of the petitioner to emphasize that if the petitioner would relinquish certain portion of the land, the drain would be completed and there would be no problem for the petitioner to utilize his property. It is also submitted that the estimation of cost has been prepared for laying the drain and completing it, in case the petitioner were to co-operate with it by relinquishing the land that is required for laying the drain in his land.
11. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
12. Afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. Western side of the land belonging to the petitioner is flooded with storm water is also not in dispute. The storm water that floods into the land of the petitioner is due to storm water drain stopping at the edge of the western side of the land belonging to the petitioner as could be seen from the sketch appended both by the petitioner 10 and MUDA and the same is causing immense problem to the petitioner is also not in dispute, as MUDA shifts its responsibility by blaming the petitioner for having purchased the said land.
13. There can be no better example of apathy of a statutory authority towards its citizens for having constructed a storm water drain in a manner unknown to the engineering annals and not providing a let out to and connecting it to any other water drainage. MUDA cannot be heard to say that the petitioner has purchased the property knowing full well about these problems and as such he has to undergo the agony. The other submission that is made is, if a portion of the property is relinquished by the petitioner it could be set off against civic amenities that the petitioner has to leave as and when he forms a layout, is also unacceptable, as by such submissions MUDA is running away from its responsibility of formation of a drain in a scientific manner. Having erred in formation of a drain on a folly of MUDA, the petitioner cannot be penalized by seeking the land 11 that the petitioner will have to leave when a layout is formed by him for civic amenities to be set off against the land that MUDA wants for completion of storm water drain. It cannot be forgotten that it is a private property of the petitioner.
14. It is also submitted that storm water drain that is to be completed will have to run through the property of the petitioner to an extent which is shown by MUDA itself in the sketch appended to its statement of objections. Therefore, it is for MUDA to take steps to set right such glaring anomaly being a statutory planning authority working in tandem with the Corporation and Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Board to set things right insofar as it concerns storm water drain.
15. If MUDA wants to run the storm water drain through the property of the petitioner to set right the wrong, acquisition proceedings in terms of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 will have to be initiated and the 12 petitioner will have to be compensated for the loss of such land for the folly of MUDA in forming its layout which has generated all the mess.
16. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following:
ORDER
(a) The Writ Petition is allowed.
(b) A mandamus is issued to the respondents to set the anomaly right by taking such steps to stop storm water and sewerage water of the MUDA layout running in to the land of the petitioner.
(c) The respondents shall construct such storm water drain which would not create outflow into the land of the petitioner and if the land of the petitioner is required for completion of storm water drain, the respondents are at liberty to acquire the same in terms of the Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
(d) The aforesaid action by the respondents as directed in (b) and (c) shall be undertaken and completed 13 within 6 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
In view of disposal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2020 filed by the petitioner also stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE bkp CT:MJ