Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

C) Grant the cost of this Petition to the Petitioner.
D) Grant such other relief's as this Hon'ble court may deems fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. "

2. The petitioner, claiming to be the absolute owner of Site No.11 formed in Sy.No.46/1, which is admittedly part of an unapproved layout, is aggrieved by the alleged unauthorized construction undertaken by private respondent No.6 in the adjacent unapproved layout formed in Sy.No.50/2. While the petitioner's site falls within Sy.No.46/1, respondent No.6 is stated to be the NC: 2025:KHC:26218 HC-KAR owner of Site No.E5 formed in Sy.No.50/2, which is also an unapproved layout and has not been converted for non- agricultural use.

4. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.6, while relying on the objections filed and NC: 2025:KHC:26218 HC-KAR additional documents produced on 15.07.2025, submits that the petitioner's site falls within Sy.No.46/1, whereas the site owned by respondent No.6 is situated in Sy.No.50/2. Referring to the sketch produced at Document No.7, learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner has access from the western side of Site No.11 through the internal roads formed in the petitioner's own layout. It is further argued that both layouts are admittedly unapproved and, therefore, the petitioner has no enforceable legal right to claim access through a road formed in a separate unapproved layout. On this premise, it is contended that the writ petition is not maintainable and no relief can be granted under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:26218 HC-KAR

9. Upon a detailed consideration of the pleadings and the description of the respective properties, it is evident that the petitioner is the owner of Site No.11, which is part of a private, unapproved layout formed in Sy.No.46/1. Conversely, private respondent No.6 claims ownership of Site No.E5, which is located in a distinct and separate survey number, namely Sy.No.50/2, and is similarly part of an unapproved layout. Thus, it is not in dispute that both layouts one in Sy.No.46/1 and the other in Sy.No.50/2 have been formed without obtaining requisite statutory approvals from the competent planning authority.

11. Despite this existing access, the petitioner now seeks to assert a right of access through the adjoining unapproved layout formed in Sy.No.50/2. However, upon careful scrutiny of the layout in Sy.No.46/1, it is noted that Site No.10 lies immediately to the north of the petitioner's Site No.11. There is no road or passage demarcated between Site Nos.10 and 11 that would allow for any form of connection or access to the layout situated in Sy.No.50/2. The petitioner's attempt to assert access over a road formed in the adjacent layout,particularly a road which lies in a different survey number and which forms part of a separate unapproved private layout cannot be countenanced in law.