Writ Petition No. 53235 of 2016 · The High Court · 2016
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10136 WP No. 53235 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 53235 OF 2016 (GM-RES) …PETITIONER BETWEEN: S L KRISHNA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O. LATE. S. LAKSHMINARAYANA, R/AT NO. 333, 12TH -B-CROSS, 5TH MAIN, NEAR KMWA SCHOOL, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM, BANGALORE 560086 (BY SRI. AJITH P B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OFFICE OF THE BDA CHOWDIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE 560020. REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER 2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE OFFICE OF THE BBMP HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE 560001, REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER SWD, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR ZONE, BANGALORE 560098 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, OFFICE AT KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE 560001 Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10136 WP No. 53235 of 2016 5. THE BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TASK FORCE BMTF OFFICE BUILDING, N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE 560002 REPRESNETED BY THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. ASHWIN S. HALADY., ADVOCATE FOR R2, R3 & R5; SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR., ADVOCATE FOR R4) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE JOINT SURVEY REPORT DTD 11TH SEPTEMBER 2016 VIDE ANNX-K AND FINALIZED BY THE R-1 AND 4 INSOFAR AS THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY NO.276 BEARING B.B.M.P. PID NO.129-W1081-61, JNANA BHARATI WARD, 12TH BLOCK, NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, 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: a. Quash the Joint Survey Report dated 11th September 2016 in No. Nil (Annexure-K) and finalized by the First and Fourth respondents in so far as the Residential Property No. 276 bearing BBMP PID No. 129-W1081-61 Jnana Bharati Ward, 12th Block, Nagarabhavi 2nd Stage, Bangalore- Subject Property. b. Direct the Respondents not to demolish the Residential Property No. 276 bearing BBMP PID No. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10136 WP No. 53235 of 2016 129-W181-61 Jnana Bharati Ward, 12th Block, Nagarabhavi 2nd Stage, Bangalore-Subject Property or any portion thereof in any manner without due notice and enquiry. c. Pass such other directions or orders as deemed fit to be granted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The petitioner claims that residential property No. 276 bearing BBMP PID No.129-W1081-61 which is at 12th Block, Nagarabhavi 2nd stage, Bangalore had been allotted by respondent No.1-Bangalore Development Authority [BDA] on 16.11.1993 to one Sri.B.N.Satyanarayana and thereafter lease cum sale agreement was executed on 17.12.1996 and possession certificate issued in his favor. Sale deed having been executed in favor of B.N Sri.B.N.Satyanarayana, in turn thereafter he executed sale deed in favor of the petitioner on 19.06.2014. Prior to that the said B.N.Satyanarayana had obtained a sanction plan from respondent-BBMP on 8.08.2007 and put up construction thereon. It is in the year 2016 that the respondent No.5 carried a - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10136 WP No. 53235 of 2016 survey of the property of the petitioner and the neighbouring properties without issuance of any notice to the petitioners and or the neighbours and marked certain properties for demolition. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this court. 3. The submission of Sri. Ajith P.B, counsel for the petitioner is that this layout having been formed by the BDA, allotted to the vendor of the petitioner, who has thereafter transferred the property to the petitioner and BBMP having sanctioned the plan, there cannot be any illegality found with the said allotment and or construction in pursuance of the sanction plan. His submission is also that the so- called survey which has been carried out contending that there is an encroachment of the Rajakaluve has been done behind the back of the petitioner inasmuch as no notice has been issued and as such, he submits that the entire action which has been taken pursuance thereto is required to be quashed. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10136 WP No. 53235 of 2016 4. Sri.B.S.Sachin, learned counsel appearing for the BDA would submit that even the BDA had not been issued any notice as regards the survey which was to be carried out since the layout has been formed by the BDA. If the BDA had been issued a notice, the BDA would have been present with all the necessary documents to establish the actual facts as to whether the construction which has been put up by the petitioner is at the place which had been allotted by the BDA or otherwise. 5. Sri.Ashwin S.Halady, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2, 3 and 5 would submit that a fresh survey would be carried out by issuance of notice to the petitioner and the BDA. 6. Heard Sri.Ajith.P.B, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Sachin.B.S, learned counsel for respondent No.1, Sri.Ashwin S.Halady, learned counsel for respondents No.2, 3 and 5 and Sri.Mahantesh Shettar, learned AGA for respondent No.4. Perused papers. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10136 WP No. 53235 of 2016 7. Though Sri.Ashwin Halady, learned counsel submits that a fresh survey would be conducted, it remains unexplained as to why the BBMP which was present at the time of survey did not make available the plan sanctioned, khata certificate, as also the property tax receipts which were available with the BBMP to the Authorities carrying out the survey. Those documents would have assisted a proper survey to be conducted to ascertain the location of the property and to further ascertain the nature of the rights of the petitioner who claims that the property has been allotted by the BDA in a layout formed by the BDA. The same not having been done, the Commissioner BBMP is directed to ascertain who are the officers responsible for this lapse and take necessary action since on account of this lapse a property belonging to a citizen is sought to be demolished. If not for the intervention of this court, the property would have stood demolished long ago. 8. In that view of the matter, I pass the following: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10136 WP No. 53235 of 2016
Decision
ORDER i. The joint survey report dated 11.09.2016 at Annexure-K is quashed. ii. The jurisdictional ADLR with the assistance of the jurisdictional Tahsildar is directed to carry out a survey of the subject property including the property of the petitioner after giving due notice to the petitioner and all the other persons whose properties are to be surveyed, to demarcate the Raja Kaluve and ascertain if the allotment made by the BDA to the petitioner is on the Raja kaluve or not. iii. If the allotment made by the BDA itself is on the Rajikaluve, the BDA would have to make good the cost of construction to the petitioner, as also by allotting alternate site. iv. If the allotment by the BDA is not on the Raja Kaluve, but there is encroachment made by the petitioner of any Raja Kaluve, necessary action - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:10136 WP No. 53235 of 2016 would have to be taken by the concerned Authorities in relation thereto. v. With the above observation, the petition stands disposed. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE LN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22