Writ Petition No. 56577 of 2016 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15021 WP No. 56577 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 56577 OF 2016 (GM-RES) …PETITIONER BETWEEN: SRINIVASA REDDY S/O REDDAPA AGED 46 YEARS, R/O HEBBAGODI VILLAGE (VINAYAKA NAGAR) ATTIBELE HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT-562106. (BY SRI. LEELADHAR H P.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. 2. 3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001 THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ENFORCEMENT CELL ENCROACHMENT PREVENTION CELL OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE-560 009 THE TAHSILDAR ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DIST PIN-562106 4. SRI BALAKRISHNA, AGE: MAJOR Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15021 WP No. 56577 of 2016 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE (L & O) ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DIST PIN-562106
Legal Reasoning
5. SRI D K SURESH AGE: MAJOR MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT BANGALORE RURAL DIST CONSTITUENCY 804, CAUVERY BD MARG NEW DELHI-110021 6. MANJUNATH REDDY S/O LATE KRISHNAREDDY AGED 23 YRS 7. K. VENKATESH REDDY S/O LATE KRISHNAREDDY AGED 25 YRS BOTH ARE R/A NO.E/690 BALAJINAGAR HEBBAGODI VILLAGE ATTIBELEHOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT PIN-560100 8. VINAYAKA PUBLIC SCHOOL FORMED BY KH EDUCATION SOCIETY (REGD) REP BY ITS SECRETARY HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.D-21 C/O MOTAPPA REDDY BUILDING, VINAYAKANAGARA HEBBAGODI VILLAGE ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT PIN:560100 9. SMT. BYAMMA W/O LATE KRISHNAREDDY AGED 50 YRS R/A NO.E/690 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15021 WP No. 56577 of 2016 BALAJINAGAR HEBBAGODI VILLAGE ATTIBELE HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT PIN:560100 10. N.MANJUNATHA REDDY AGE: MAJOR REVENUE INSPECTOR CHANDAPURA CIRCLE ATTIBELE HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT PIN:560100 (BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKAR., GA FOR R1 TO R3; R4, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9, R10-SERVED) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO.CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS DTD.19.10.2016 VIDE ANNEX-A FROM THE R-3 AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE FORM OF RIGHT TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-3 DTD.19.10.2016 VIDE ANNEX-A AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: i. Issue writ of Certiorari order or direction in the form of right to quash the order passed by the 3rd Respondent in No.NCR CR/68/2016-17 dated 19.10.2016 under Annexure-A. ii. iii. iv. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15021 WP No. 56577 of 2016 Issue a writ of mandamus order or direction in the form of writ directing the Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and also the Respondents 6 to 10 to restore the wall constructed by the Petitioner in Sy.No.85/1b in Hebbagodi Village, measuring 36 guntas (Vinayaka Nagar) Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District. the Principal Secretary, Issue writ of order or direction in the form of right the 1st directing Respondent to hold an enquiry against the R3 and also Respondent No.10 about their illegal and high- handed acts; illegal for their Issue a writ of order or direction in the form of right writ directing the R3, R4, R5 to R10 to pay to tres-pass of the petitioner Sy.No.85/1-b measuring 36 guntas in Hebbagodi Village of the Petitioner’s land causing damages to the wall and also illegal detention of the Petitioner 20.10.2016 from 10.30 a.m to 2.30 p.m. in Police Jeep of the R4 and also in the Hebbagodi Police Station; and v. Issue any order or direction in the form of writ as the Hon’ble Court deems the circumstances of the case including the cost of the writ petition. fit under 2. The grievance of the petitioner is by way of the impugned order/direction of the Tahsildar- respondent No.3 dated 19.10.2016 at Annexure-A, a road is sought to be formed on the portion of the property belonging to the petitioner. 3. Sri.H.P.Leeladhar., learned counsel for the petitioner submits that; - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15021 WP No. 56577 of 2016 3.1. The action on the part of the Tahsildar is on account of the complaint by respondents No.7, 8 and 9. His submission is that respondent No.8 of which respondent No.9 is the owner had filed a suit in OS No.325 of 2016 seeking for declaration that respondents No.8 and 9 have a right of easement of necessity to use the road formed in Sy.No.85/1B belonging to the defendants therein i.e., petitioners-herein. Also alleging that the Town Municipality has put up a concrete road to reach the scheduled land belonging to plaintiff No.2, where the plaintiff No.1 is running a school. 3.2. In the said suit, an order of injunction was sought for to restrain the defendants-therein from blocking the access road. This injunction was refused by the trial Court. 3.3. Subsequently, an appeal has been filed in MA No.21 of 2017 before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal. The Misc. Appeal Court also - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15021 WP No. 56577 of 2016 rejected the order of injunction. The matter being brought to this Court in writ petition No.54085 of 2017, this Court also rejected the request for injunction. 3.4. In the meanwhile, respondents No.8 and 9 having approached the Tahsildar, the Tahsildar had issued a direction on 19.10.2016 as if there is a public road which is situated in the property of the petitioner. 3.5. The submission of the Sri.H.P.Leeladhar., learned counsel for the petitioner is that when the respondents No.8 and 9 themselves are claiming a right of easement over a private road, the question of the Tahsildar claiming that it is a public road and issuing the direction at Annexure-A would not arise and as such it is submitted that Annexure-A is required to be quashed. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15021 WP No. 56577 of 2016 4. Sri.Sangamesh.R.B., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.9 would submit that; 4.1. Respondent No.9 has been using the road which has been formed by the petitioners- herein for last several years and that the said road is maintained by the municipality and as such the Tahsildar was right in issuing the order. 4.2. In this regard, he relies upon the partition deed which has been produced by the petitioners themselves at Annexure-D to submit that in terms of Schedule-D thereof, the land of one Smt.Janakamma in Sy.No.85/1B measuring 3 Guntas is bounded on the south by a 15 feet road and on that basis a plan has been prepared at Annexure-C at page 44 relying on both these documents, he submits that there is a road which has been formed towards the south of the land of Smt.Janakamma, the said - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:15021 WP No. 56577 of 2016 road is a public road which has been used by the respondents No.8 and 9. 4.3. On that ground, he submits that the order passed by the Tahsildar is proper and correct and does not require any intervention. 5. Heard Sri.H.P.Leeladhar., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.Sangamesh.R.B., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.9 and perused paper. 6. It is not in dispute that the respondents No.8 and 9 have filed a suit in OS No.325 of 2016, the reliefs which have been sought for therein are reproduced hereunder for easy reference: i. ii. To declare that the plaintiffs have a right of easement of necessity to use the road formed in Sy.No.85/1B belonging to the defendants in which the Town Municipality has also put a concrete road to reach the schedule land belonging to the plaintiff No.2 and where the plaintiff No.1 is running a school. To pass a decree of injunction, restraining the defendants or anybody claiming under them, from blocking the access road so as to reach the land measuring 25 guntas in Sy.No.25/1A, belonging to the 22nd plaintiff herein wherein the 1st plaintiff has established School in the name of Vinayaka Public School. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:15021 WP No. 56577 of 2016 iii. Pass such other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem facts and circumstances of the case, to meet the ends of justice. fit under the 7. Essentially, what has been sought for by respondents No.8 and 9-herein who are the plaintiffs-therein is for a right of easement of necessity to use the road formed the Sy.No.85/1B belonging to the defendants-therein, in which the town municipality has put up a concrete road. 8. It is not that the road belongs to the municipality and land belongs to the municipality and municipality has formed a road, even as per the averments made by defendants No.8 and 9 this concrete road is alleged to have been put up to reach the scheduled land belonging to plaintiff No.2, where plaintiff No.1 is running a school. 9. It is not that this road leads to any other property, but the contention of the plaintiffs-therein is that this road apparently has been exclusively formed for the purpose of usage of the plaintiffs therein who are - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:15021 WP No. 56577 of 2016 respondents No.8 and 9-herein. The application for injunction which had been filed therein claiming that the defendants were blocking the use of the road and therefore, they had to be restrained had been rejected by the trial Court. The said rejection order was confirmed in MA No.21 of 2017 and later on confirmed by this Court in WP No.54085 of 2017 and thereafter by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP. No.9986/2018. 10. Thus, it is clear that despite the various contentions taken up by respondents No.8 and 9-herein, there is no order of injunction which came to be granted by any of the Courts and the right of respondents No.8 and 9 is yet to be established and determined by the trial court seized of OS No.325 of 2016. 11. Such being the case, it could not be for the Tahsildar to issue a direction to break open the compound wall put up by the petitioners and allow an access of the said road by respondents No.8 and 9. In fact, this aspect has also been referred to by the Co-ordinate - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:15021 WP No. 56577 of 2016 Bench of this Court in its order dated 19.01.2018 in WP No.54085 of 2017 in paragraph 36 thereof and a reference is made to WP No.41799 of 2016 and WP No. 56577 of 2016, where this Court vide order dated 9.11.2016 granted interim order of stay of all further proceedings initiated by Tahsildar. 12. That being the case, the further proceedings having been stayed, the dispute essentially being between private parties as regards a private property and not as regards any public property or a public road, the Tahsildar could not have issued any direction in terms of Annexure-A dated 19.10.2016.This direction issued by Tahsildar in my considered opinion is in excess of his authority and is an abuse of his official powers trying to interfere in a private lis between private parties. 13. In that view of the matter, the Principal Secretary Revenue Department-respondent No.1 is directed to look into the matter and take such action as may be necessary in the matter after holding a due enquiry. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:15021 WP No. 56577 of 2016 14. In the event of any suppression of any material fact being made by respondents No.8 and 9 in the representation submitted by Tahsildar, the Principal Secretary Revenue Department would necessarily have to take action against respondents No.8 and 9 for such suppression. 15. In view of my aforesaid finding, I pass the following; i. ii.
Decision
ORDER The writ petition is allowed. A certiorari is issued, the order passed by respondent No.3-Tahsildar in so and so at Annexure-A is quashed. iii. Since the wall has been restored, the question of consideration of Prayer-B would not arise. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32