Karnataka High Court
Smt Sharadamma vs Bangalore Water Supply And on 25 May, 2023
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
WP No. 23433 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MAY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 23433 OF 2012 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
SMT SHARADAMMA
W/O SRI T HANUMANTHA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/A NO.117/77, KANAKAPURA ROAD
JAYANAGAR 6TH BLOCK
YEDIYUR, BANGALORE-560082.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI K.C. SUDARSHAN., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND
SEWERAGE BOARD,
Digitally signed KAVERI BHAVAN
by JUANITA
THEJESWINI BANGALORE-560009
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY
KARNATAKA
2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
DEVAGIRI SERVICE STATION,
22ND CROSS, 16TH MAIN,
BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE,
BANGALORE-560070
3. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
HEAD OFFICE
NARASIMHARAJA SQUARE
-2-
WP No. 23433 of 2012
BANGALORE-560002
BY COMMISSIONER
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRASHANT T PANDIT, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & 2,
SRI MANJUNATH V RAYAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITTUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO HOLE
THAT FORCIBLY TAKING OVER, OCCUPATION & UTILIZATION
OF 150 SQ.FT. AREA OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER
AS SHOWN IN YELLOW COLOUR BORDER LINES IN ANNEXURE-
B BY THE RESPONDENTS IS ILLEGAL & UNSUSTAINABLE AND
ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner is before this Court aggrieved of the so called high handed action on the part of the respondents, more particularly the 1st respondent - Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board in encroaching upon 150 sq. ft. of the property belonging to the petitioner and laying pipeline beneath the said area belonging to the petitioner. The prayer therefore is to declare that the respondents -3- WP No. 23433 of 2012 have forcibly had taken over, occupation and utilization of 150 sq.ft. of the land belonging to the petitioner as demarcated in yellow colour in annexure-B sketch. The petitioner also prays that there be a direction to the respondent to pay compensation for forcible dispossession of the petitioner of the said 150 sq. ft. of land.
2. Statement of objections have been filed at the hands of the respondents - BBMP and BWSSB. The BWSSB states that the claim made by the petitioner is untenable. It is stated that the BWSSB undertook the works of laying waterlines on the on the edge of the road and the pipeline runs throughout the road and there has been no claim made by any other person who owns the property adjacent to the said road. It is stated that the width of the road is 15 feet and 7 inches and not 9 feet as claimed by the petitioner.
3. During the course of these proceedings directions were issued to the 3rd respondent - BBMP to take the assistance of the Additional Director of Land -4- WP No. 23433 of 2012 Records, conduct a survey in the presence of the parties and submit a report. Accordingly, along with a memo dated 10.03.2023, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent -BBMP has furnished a report submitted at the hands of the Assistant Executive Engineer, Banashankari Sub-division. A copy of the sketch prepared by the Taluk Surveyor, Bangalore South Taluk is also furnished along with the report. Learned counsels for the respondents - BWSSB and BBMP jointly submit that the report furnished by the Assistant Executive Engineer, BBMP along with the sketch prepared by the Taluk Surveyor clearly shows that the road abutting the property belonging to the petitioner measures 16 feet and pipelines have been drawn by the BWSSB throughout the road, at the edge of the road. No claim has been made by any other person who owns the property abutting the said road. This very clearly shows that the claim of the petitioner is unfounded.
4. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsels and on perusing the petition papers, this -5- WP No. 23433 of 2012 Court finds that admittedly action was taken by the respondent - BWSSB to lay the waterline way back in the year 2009. This writ petition has been filed on 09.07.2012, long after the waterlines were laid by the BWSSB. It was another matter if the BWSSB had admitted that it has utilised a portion of the property belonging to the petitioner to lay the water lines. On the other hand, it is clearly stated in the statement of objections filed at the hands of the BWSSB and BBMP that the road abutting the property belonging to the petitioner measures about 16 feet and throughout road, at the edge, the water lines have been drawn and the electric lines have also been drawn by BESCOM. These lines are drawn at the edge of the road which is maintained by the BBMP. In that view of the matter, the respondents have asserted that they have not utilised the property belonging to the private person including the petitioner herein.
5. On the other hand, if it is sought to be claimed by the petitioner that a portion of her property has been -6- WP No. 23433 of 2012 utilised by BWSSB for laying the waterline then, it would become a disputed question, which cannot be decided in these writ proceedings. It is well settled that if a person is aggrieved of any encroachment then he or she is require to approach the competent civil court to protect the property from unauthorised encroachment. As stated earlier, if the BWSSB had admitted before this Court that it has unauthorisedly utilised a portion of the private property belonging to the petitioner, then it was possible for this Court to direct the BWSSB to take action although belatedly, to acquire the portion and pay compensation in accordance with law. But as noticed hereinabove, the BWSSB has clearly stated it has laid the waterline throughout the edge and the road belonging to the respondent - BBMP and it has not encroached upon the property belonging to the petitioner. Such being the case, since disputed questions arise in this writ petition, such disputes cannot be decided by this Court in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. -7- WP No. 23433 of 2012
6. The petitioner is at liberty to remedy the injury by approaching the competent civil court. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KLY/-