Karnataka High Court
Karnataka Jesuit Educational Society vs The Bangalore Development Authority on 1 September, 2022
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
WP No. 24783 of 2011
C/W WP No. 19629 of 2011, WP No. 45168 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 24783 OF 2011 (KLR-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 19629 OF 2011 (BDA)
WRIT PETITION NO. 45168 OF 2012 (BDA)
IN W. P. NO. 24783 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA JESUIT EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY
A CHARITABLE SOCIETY REGISTERED
IN THE YEAR 1956 UNDER THE
SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1860,
Digitally signed by
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT LOYOLA MANDIR,
JUANITA THEJESWINI 96, LAVELLE ROAD, BANGALORE-560001
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
FR.LEO PEREIRA
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. AJESH KUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SRINIVAS.N. ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
BANGALORE-560001.
2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DISTRICT
BANGALORE-560001.
-2-
WP No. 24783 of 2011
C/W WP No. 19629 of 2011, WP No. 45168 of 2012
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE
4. THE TAHASILDAR
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE
5. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AURTHORITY
A GOVT. ORGANISATION AND
A PLANNING AUTHORITY FOR THE
BANGALORE METROPOLITAN ARE
CREATED UNDER THE
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT ATC, 1976,
HAVING HEAD OFFICE AT
T.CHOWDAISH ROAD, KUMARAPARK WEST,
BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY
ITS COMMISSIONER.
6. MULTIPAK ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT LTD,
NO.1 TO 4, KOTHUNUR DINNE MAIN ROAD,
JAMBU SAVARI DINNE, BANNERGHATA ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 076 REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
7. LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
12TH FLOOR, PUBLIC UTILITY BUILDING,
M G ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001
KARNATAKA, INDIA
(REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA)
8. KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PARISARA BHAVAN, NO.49, 4TH & 5TH FLOOR,
CHURCH STREET, BANGALORE-560 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
B.B.M.P.
9. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
N.R. CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560001.
...RESPONDENTS
-3-
WP No. 24783 of 2011
C/W WP No. 19629 of 2011, WP No. 45168 of 2012
(BY SRI. D.R. RAJASHEKARAPPA, SPL. GOVT. ADVOCATE
FOR R1 TO R4
SMT. LATHA S.S., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. MURUGESH.V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R5
SRI. PRASAD HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R6
SRI. GURURAJ JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR R7
SRI. JEEVAN J.NEERALGI, ADVOCATE FOR R8
SRI. K.V. NARASIMHAN, ADVCOATE FOR R9
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 21.4.2011 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT
TAHASILDAR AS PER ANNEXURE-A HEREIN AND ETC.,
IN W. P. NO. 19629 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA JESUIT EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY
A CHARITABLE SOCIETY REGISTERED
IN THE YEAR 1956 UNDER THE SOCIETIES
REGISTRATION ACT, 1860,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
LOYOLA MANDIR, 96, LAVELLE ROAD,
BANGALORE-560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
FR.LEO PEREIRA
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. AJESH KUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SRINIVAS.N. ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
A GOVERNMNET ORGANISATION AND
A PLANNING AUTHORITY FOR
THE BANGALORE METROPOLITAN AREA
CREATED UNDER THE BANGALORE
DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1976
-4-
WP No. 24783 of 2011
C/W WP No. 19629 of 2011, WP No. 45168 of 2012
HAVING HEAD OFFICE AT T CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARAPARK WEST, BANGALORE
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
BANGALORE
3. BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY
AND SEWERAGE BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
CAUVERY BHAVAN, BANGALORE-560009
4. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
N.R. CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560001.
5. THE TAHASILDAR
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
K.G. ROAD, MYSORE BANK CIRCLE
BANGALORE-560009.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.V. SHANKARNARAYANA RAO,
SRI. ADVOCATE FOR R1
SRI. D.R. RAJASHEKARAPPA,
SPL. GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DT.23.4.11 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT
AS PER ANN-A HERE TO AND ETC.,
IN W. P. NO. 45168 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
1. SRI K GANESH RAJ
S/O A.S.N. BHATT,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.1688,
-5-
WP No. 24783 of 2011
C/W WP No. 19629 of 2011, WP No. 45168 of 2012
OPP. ROYAL COUNTY
BDA LAYOUT, II BLOCK,
J.P.NAGAR, 8TH PHASE,
BANGALORE-560 03.
2. SRI BELAWADI NAGARAJ,
S/O. LATE B.C.SAMBASHIVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.31,
J.P.NAGAR, 8TH PHASE,
JAMBU SAVARI DINNE,
BANGALORE-560 083.
3. SRI V.VANRAJ
S/O. LATE E.N.NARASIMULU NAIDU,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.31, II BLOCK,
BDA LAYOUT, J.P.NAGAR,
8TH PHASE, JAMBU SAVARI DINNE,
BANGALORE-560 083.
4. SRI K.ADINARAYANA SETTY,
S/O. KUMARASWAMY SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.1650, II BLOCK,
BDA LAYOUT, J.P.NAGAR,
8TH PHASE, JAMBU SAVARI DINNE,
BANGALORE-560 083
5. RADEESH
S/O.V.RAJAN,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.1650, II BLOCK,
BDA LAYOUT, J.P.NAGAR,
8TH PHASE, JAMBU SAVARI DINNE,
BANGALORE-560 083.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PRADEEP KUMAR BHARADWAJ, ADVOCATE)
-6-
WP No. 24783 of 2011
C/W WP No. 19629 of 2011, WP No. 45168 of 2012
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
KUMARA PARK EAST,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
SOUTH DIVISION, BANASHANKARI BDA
COMPLEX, BANGALORE-560 050.
3. THE PRESIDENT
BWSSB, KAVERI BHAVAN,
BANGALORE-560 001.
4. THE JEEVALAYA INSTITUTE OF PHILOSOPHY
THE CHANCELLOR AND PATRON,
MCBS-MISSIONARY CONGREGATION
OF SACRAMENT, II BLOCK, J.P.NAGAR
8TH PHASE, GOTTIGERE POST,
BANGALORE-560 083.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. UNNIKRISHNAN. M ADVOCTE FOR R1 & 2
SRI. MONESH KUMAR K.B., ADVOCATE FOR R3
SRI. VIVEK ANAND ANTHONY BRITTO, ADVOCATE FOR R4
SRI. A.C. BALARAJ & VIVEK ANAND ANTHONY BRITTO,
ADVOCAGES FOR IMPLEADING APPLICANTS)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS TO REPAIR THE DRAINAGE LINES AND PROVIDE
PROPER CONNECTIVITY FOR THE SMOOTH LET OUT OF THE
SEWERAGE WASTE AND ETC.,
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-7-
WP No. 24783 of 2011
C/W WP No. 19629 of 2011, WP No. 45168 of 2012
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner-Society filed writ Petition Nos.24783/2011 & 19629/2011 being aggrieved of the show cause notice dated 29.03.2011 issued by the 4th respondent-Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk, purportedly invoking Sections 39 and 94 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. However, although the petitioner-society sought for some time to file a reply and make submissions, nevertheless, the Tahsildar proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 21.04.2011 holding that the petitioner has unauthorisedly encroached upon an extent of 5 guntas in Sy.No.48 and 4 guntas in Sy.No.50, totally 9 guntas and directed eviction of the unauthorized occupation. The petitioner - Society approached the Assistant Commissioner and thereafter the Deputy Commissioner. However, since no favourable orders were passed by the revenue authorities, these writ petitions are filed by the Society.-8-
WP No. 24783 of 2011 C/W WP No. 19629 of 2011, WP No. 45168 of 2012
2. Consequent to the order passed by the Tahsildar the Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority also passed an order dated 23.04.2011 regarding the storm water drain (Rajakaluve), which was sought to have been encroached upon by the petitioner, which was directed to be kept free for flow of rain water. The Commissioner directed that the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (BWSSB) and the Tahsildar shall take steps for laying pipelines for carrying sewerage water through the property belonging to the petitioner society and to ensure that storm water drain is kept open for free flow of the rain water. This order dated 23.04.2011 passed by the Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) is the subject matter of Writ Petition No.45168/2012.
3. These three matters were directed to be clubbed and accordingly the matters were clubbed and were heard on several occasions. Several interim orders were passed taking note of the submissions made by the -9- WP No. 24783 of 2011 C/W WP No. 19629 of 2011, WP No. 45168 of 2012 learned counsels. In one such order dated 06.01.2014, this Court took note of the decisions of the Chief Engineer of BWSSB, Pollution Control Board and the Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority who proposed to have a separate sewerage Channel underground (UGD) through pipeline or concrete blocks and the cost was estimated to be about Rs.4 crores. The said scheme was required to be implemented by the Government through the BWSSB and the BDA. It was also directed that two separate pipelines are to be laid to ensure that there is no mixing of the sewerage water with the storm water. Further, this Court directed the BDA to deposit the amount required with the BWSSB for creation of underground drainage, for carrying the sewerage water. Accordingly, after the said amount being deposited with the BWSSB, works were directed to be carried on by the BWSSB.
4. On 03.08.2022, this Court had recorded the submission of the Sri K.B.Monesh Kumar, who appears for the respondent- BWSSB that the work of laying sewerage
- 10 -
WP No. 24783 of 2011 C/W WP No. 19629 of 2011, WP No. 45168 of 2012 line had been carried out and completed and no further grievance is left to the petitioner-society and the residents of the adjoining layout formed by the BDA. At that juncture, learned counsel Sri Ajesh Kumar, appearing for the petitioner and Sri Vivek Anand Anthony Britto had submitted that there were some grievances vented by the society and another institution in the adjoining layout that there was stagnation of water and that had to be redressed. Therefore, this Court directed a joint inspection to be held by the Chief Engineer (Project) BWSSB, Bangalore in the presence of the representative of the petitioner society and the 4th respondent - institution in W.P.No.45168/2012; the concerned Executive Engineer of the BBMP and BDA and the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk and to submit a report before this Court. Accordingly, the learned counsel Sri K.B.Monesh Kumar, filed a memo dated 24.08.2022 along with a joint inspection report. Having gone through the report, it is clear that the BWSSB has put up a UGD pipeline carrying
- 11 -
WP No. 24783 of 2011 C/W WP No. 19629 of 2011, WP No. 45168 of 2012 the sewerage water which runs through the property belonging to the petitioner society. In so far as the grievance raised by the learned counsel for the society and the 4th respondent institution in the connected matter, appropriate steps have been taken to redress the grievance of the stagnation of water in a few places. For the present, it has been agreed by the learned counsels that the grievance of the petitioner society, the residents of the adjoining layout formed by the BDA including the 4th respondent institution in the connected matter have been redressed.
5. In so far as the storm water drain is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner society has today filed an affidavit of the Secretary and Treasurer of the petitioner- society along with photographs, which show that the petitioner society has built a storm water drain with stone masonry keeping the free flow of the storm water which runs through the property belonging to the petitioner which further joins the lake which is outside the
- 12 -
WP No. 24783 of 2011 C/W WP No. 19629 of 2011, WP No. 45168 of 2012 property of the petitioner society. Provision has been made at the required area for the movement of the people and vehicles ensuring that there is no stoppage or blocks in the storm water drain and there is no inconvenience caused to any party.
6. In so far as the storm water drain is concerned, the learned counsel for the respondent State authorities submits that as per his instructions the encroachment has been removed during 2011 itself and from then on, there are no complaints in so far as the storm water drain is concerned.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner society and the 4th respondent institution jointly submit that if there is any further grievance, they may be permitted to approach the BWSSB to redress their grievance. Learned counsel for the BWSSB submits that in fact the authorities has furnished the phone numbers of the concerned engineers who would redress the grievance of the parties if there is any difficulty such as leakage of the sewerage water etc.
- 13 -
WP No. 24783 of 2011 C/W WP No. 19629 of 2011, WP No. 45168 of 2012 At the same time, learned counsel Sri K.B. Monesh Kumar, submits that the petitioner society should be directed to ensure that whenever the men from the BWSSB required access to clear any blockage in the sewerage line, the authorities of the institution/society shall not cause any obstruction. Learned counsel Sri Ajesh Kumar, appearing on behalf of the petitioner society submits that society and the authority will have no objection for giving access to the men and material of the BWSSB if required for clearance of any blockage and for regular maintenance.
8. Having noticed the grievance regarding the UGD, this Court also deems it necessary to direct the petitioner society that there shall be no obstruction for free flow of storm water drain. There is no such compliant regarding sewerage water drain as of now, however in future if there is any complaint, the same shall be addressed in an expeditious manner without causing any grievance to the society and the residents of the neighbouring BDA layout.
- 14 -
WP No. 24783 of 2011 C/W WP No. 19629 of 2011, WP No. 45168 of 2012
9. Learned counsel Sri Ajesh Kumar appearing for the petitioner society submits that off late the BDA has constructed box type drainages to carry storm water to ensure that there is no stench emanating from the drains and a direction may be issued to the BDA to put up such box type drain. However learned counsel for the respondent would submit that if at all there is a provision for putting up such box type drain, it should be at the cost of the owner of the property. Nevertheless, if there is such a request coming from the petitioner society and if it is permissible under law, the concerned authority shall take note of such request and permit or carryout such construction and the cost shall be borne by the party as established by the rules and regulation formulated by the authority.
10. Having regard to all the above aspects and taking note of the report submitted by the Chief Engineer (Project) BWSSB, Bangalore and all the learned counsels having jointly submitted that there is no grievance of any
- 15 -
WP No. 24783 of 2011 C/W WP No. 19629 of 2011, WP No. 45168 of 2012 of the parties in so far as the establishment of underground drainage and the storm water drain, nothing further survives for consideration in these writ petitions. In so far as the legal claims are concerned, this Court has not gone into the rights of the parties and has not decided the case on merits. All contentions are left open.
11. Accordingly, all the writ petitions stands disposed of taking note of the development that has happened during the course of these proceedings.
12. All pending Interlocutory applications stand disposed of in view of the disposal of the writ petitions.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE KLY