A R Suresh vs Defence Secretary on 17 September, 2010

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

A R Suresh vs Defence Secretary on 17 September, 2010

Bench: Manjula Chellur

EN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 177" DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2010

PRESENT

THE HONELE MR.J.S.KHEHAR, CHIEF JUSfI,TI'V(:1E_§"._V.

AND

THE HGNELE MRSJUSTICE MANJUI_£yCi%§~ELi:;UR _: "  

WRIT PETITION NO. 10183 

BETVVEEN :

1.

SR1!-\..R.SURESH   
s/0 LATE RUDF'a;A.I?13A *  
AGED 43 YEARS"-.  _   ;
R/A No.14, 2ND CROSS   ' 
MODI GARDEN, I-J'.C».-N'AGAR_
BANGALORE'-;560 006'    V.

SE1 '4
5/0 LATE VP;VC;ANTO.N.'{
AGED 58 YE_ARS= 
RV/A N"o.14.~ .1,<s'r CROSS

.. «EGMODI GARD EN._J.c.NAGAR
G- EziaNGALoRE:'5'6o 006

V _ " 'SB1$1';'R{AHI»§ADUNISSA BEGUM
. '- Y.YVYw/0_~v'EHA§«*1GzULLA KHAN

' AGED-E3 YEARS
 R/'A Nb. 14, 2ND CROSS

NIQDI GARDEN, J.C.NAGAR

" 'BANGALORE-560 O06
 'SR3 DMUNEGOWDA

S/O LATE DODANNA
AGED 49 YEARS
R/ A No.40, NAGARAJ LAYOUT



KAVALBYRASAN D RA
R.T.NAGAR POST

BANGALORE4360 032
...PETITIONERS

[BY SR1 PRADEEP SINGH FOR M/SPRAMEELA
ASSOCIATES, ADVS..)

AND

1.

DEFENCE SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF' INDIA    I
SOUTH BLOCK  
NEW I:)ELHI--I I0 002

THE COMMANDANT '  
PARACHUTE REGIMENT" '
TRAINING CENTRE "
J.C.NAGAR  I  
BANGALORE560 'O06    

SUB-ARE   V V'  

KR   
C--iOI3.EONCNROAD,G4   A ~
BA.NGALORE--__j;3.60.. 90.1 

DEFENCE "OFFICER

E _;K;ARNATAI:A AND GOA CIRCLE
 _ - °K.:}§AMARAJA"'E?:0AD
 Q BANGAE-_.,ORE~560 042

 VTA£EA«.CO'IyII;/IISSIONER
. A 'BANCA_LORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
 CORPORATION CIRCLE,

BANGALORE
 ...RE3SPONDENTS

 . A'{'BY-SARI VEERENORA SIIARMA,

A  CGSC FOR R1 TO 4;

"  -SR1 B.V.MURALIDI-IAR, ADV., FOR R6)



www

I 'AnneXLtI'e--H .. A

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
228 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING TO RESTRAIN THE RESPONDENTS, THEIR
MEN AND SERVANTS FROM CLOSING SAWAR LINE
ROAD AND PERMIT USE OF THE SAID ROAD FOR
MOVEMENT OF MEN AND VEHICLES AND ETC. 

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING 

PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF 
MADE THE FOLLOWING:   I 

J.S.KHEHAR, C.J. (Oral)

The petitioners are residents 'o»f_1\/IoIdi' -Gyaljdien Layout as also Kavalbyrasantéii-at'layoiut. "location of Modi Garden Layou_thavs_ plan placed on the rec_oI'IcI1ICVofA.tV5Ic1ve Tp'etition._"asVAnnexure--H. During the course = learned counsel for the respondents no.1': ciIi':~31I)I1'L1..te the correctness of the site plan It i's._the Contention of the petitioners, that they hadheen -'I?/Tlfiﬁselling over Sawar Line Road for access to '._theirI Itesidences located within Modi Garden Layout and I I~IfI€ayaIbyrasandra Layout. for the last many decades. Howevel', respondent Nos.i2 to 4, suddenly in the year 2003, prevented the residents of the aforesaid two layouts from using Sawar Line Road for access to their residences. It is therefore, that they approached this Court, by filing the instant writ petition.

3. On the first date of hearing, i.e., an interim order was passed in favour of. petitione1"s,V allowing them to use Sawar Line Road for ' residences, in Modi ,Garden'1_ 'Layout as 'also' Kavalbyrasandra Layout. The4"a'foresaid"interim} order has been in operation till date. _

4. DL:trii'ig:i1'the"course of we enquired from the learned respondent Nos.l to 4.

whethaeri'~any V.'u'ntoy_\(ar'd incident had occurred after the pas~sjng;§_of interim order on 12.3.2003. on account. of th€.""petitionerIsV using Sawar Line Road. In response '.Vtl1ereef,$"the learned counsel answered in the negative. It A fist, therefore. apparent that the use of the aforesaid road, ' has not been detrimental to the interest: of respondent Nos.1 to 4.

f":'"%"'* if

5. In addition to the aforesaid, we have perused Annexure-lwl. Sawar Line Road adjoins only the Military Family Quarters.

As such, the aforesaid road has no direct access to any military instillation. In fact, is another parallel road beyond the military _ Desraj Urs Road. It is only gbgeyond_"'thal",».iltlaat respondents have located the rrrilitaryi' line-lsi,' also, to be used for residential--._purposes, Wea,r'e..,sVatisfiedf from Annexure--H, that SawarmL',ine_,_gRoadrizsrillgvvfunder no circumstances affect "any. ,,,':iinsti_llation, and as such, we are »..tlie"'-interim order passed on same is, accordingly, conf1rmved."-- V 'instantdswrit. petition is, accordingly, . it "di,spo{seEd*ot'; granted to respondent Nos.1 to 4 and to respondent No.5 on the other, to provide__a11.alternative road for access to the residents of Vlphlxéodi Garden Layout as also to Kavalbyrasandra Layout ,."fr,or'n--Aboth ends. As and when such an alternative road is ~provided by the respondents. it would be open to respondent Nos.1 to 4 to restrict movement on Sawar Line Road. Needless to mention. that the instant direction does not permit the use of Desraj Urs Road, to either the petitioners or the public, for access to Modiw '5(:;_§_;:é11f.§1e11 Layout or Kavaibyrasandra layout.

.--' ' 'v, ' .§ .

- W: 5 '~* , > ;._.~ \ A .

Cfiwai .3 1122- :i%1ﬁ"'3..:A J. o .

bkv % Index: yes/no '

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court