Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. It was submitted, trial Court drew adverse inference against defendant-BBMP for not producing sketch showing existence of SWD on suit property. It was submitted, when it was plaintiffs' who had approached Court for relief, and law required them to establish their case, passing orders based on adverse inferences would be contrary to law and as such untenable. It was submitted, when BBMP, a statutory local MFA Nos.8632/2022 C/W 8426/2022, 8427/2022 & 8428/2022 authority had stated that it was taking action for removal of encroachment on SWD based on survey by ADLR, etc. burden ought to have been placed on plaintiffs. On other hand, trial Court, virtually accepted contention about non-existence of SWD in suit property based on plaintiffs' claim to have verified from revenue records.

10. It was submitted, trial Court lost sight of fact that plaintiffs contended there was violation of principles of natural justice insofar as determination about SWDs running in suit property. While, said contention remained unsubstantiated, in their alleged reply to notice dated 08.07.2021, plaintiffs have specifically admitted to survey of suit property having being conducted. Hence, drawing adverse inference was totally illegal rendering impugned order untenable.

11. It was submitted, in pursuance of directions issued by Lokayukta, ADLR, had surveyed suit property and identified areas where there was encroachment of SWDs. It was submitted, this Court in its order dated 27.07.2023 passed in W.P.no.22550/2022, had held course of SWD was identified, BBMP authorities were bound to take action for removal of encroachment in consonance with revenue authorities.

MFA Nos.8632/2022 C/W 8426/2022, 8427/2022 & 8428/2022

12. It was submitted, even where notices issued by BBMP for voluntary removal of encroachment on SWDs, were challenged on ground of pre-determination, this Court in W.P.19563/2022 (D.D. 16.02.2023) had only directed conduct of fresh survey by ADLR providing fair opportunity to petitioners at time of survey for identification of course of SWD. However, grant of injunction by trial Court had virtually stopped BBMP from taking action under any circumstances. On above grounds, sought for allowing appeal.

15. It was further submitted, when alleged survey by ADLR was without opportunity to plaintiffs, ratio in above decisions would avail to plaintiffs.

16. It was submitted, as per Section 67 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, all public roads, streets ..... rivers, streams, nalas ..... and all canals and water courses etc. which were not property of others, belonged to government. On other

- 11 -

MFA Nos.8632/2022 C/W 8426/2022, 8427/2022 & 8428/2022 hand, properties of BBMP as enumerated under Section 129 of BBMP Act, only included public parks, play grounds, and open spaces reserved for ventilation and public lamps, lamp posts etc. It was therefore submitted, SWDs did not belong to BBMP and it had no jurisdiction to take any action in relation to SWDs. It was also submitted, BBMP had failed to produce any material to substantiate that State Government had made over SWDs to BBMP. On both counts, proposed action by BBMP against plaintiffs would be without authority of law, thereby justifying grant of injunction.