Writ Petition No. 35956 of 2012 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17881 WP No. 35956 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 35956 OF 2012 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. VIDYA RANI GOYAL SINCE DECEASED BY LRs 1(A) KANTHA AGGARWAL KANTHA GARG D/O KAILASH CHAND GOYAL W/O MAHAVEER GARG AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT 2323, 20TH CROSS, K.R. ROAD NEAR UMA MAHESHWARI TEMPLE BSK 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560070. 1(B) SATISH GOYAL S/O KAILASH CHAND GOYAL AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 1(C) ANIL GOYAL S/O KAILASH CHAND GOYAL AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS PETITIONERS ARE R/AT # 41, 39TH CROSS, II MAIN, VIII BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BIDARAHALLI BANGALORE – 560070. 2. M/S ANUSHKA CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPAINES ACT HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 100/1 CITY CENTRE, OPP. TOWN HALL JC ROAD BANGALORE-560002. Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17881 WP No. 35956 of 2012
Legal Reasoning
REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. AVINASH AMARIAL …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. KEERTHI KRISHNA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR P1(A TO C); SRI. SOURABH R. KURUBARAHALLI, ADVOCATE FOR P2) AND: 1. SPECIAL DY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT, BANGALORE-560001. 2. ASST. COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION PODIUM BLOCK BANGALORE - 560001. 3. TAHSILDAR BANGALORE EAST TALUK KRISHNARAJAPURA, BANGALORE-560 001. 4. SRINIVAS TRUST LTD REPTD. BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE D.A. KALPAJA DALAVOI # 7/21, I CROSS, IX MAIN RMV EXTN. BANGALORE – 560020. [VIDE COURT ORDER, CAUSE TITILE AMENDED] …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. S. SRINIVASA MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NO. 04.05.2012 KAVASHISASA/ADMIN-2/114-2011-12 DATED ISSUED BY THE R-5 VIDE ANNEXURE F1 – F2 AND ETC. ENDORSEMENT BEARING THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17881 WP No. 35956 of 2012 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner has raised a dispute before the Deputy Commissioner contending that the land that was granted to the respondent No.4 – Trust had included a pathway through which the petitioner could access her land. 2. The matter was remanded by this Court, on an earlier occasion, with a specific direction to the Deputy Commissioner to examine whether there was a cart road or a pathway demarcated in the village map in Sy.No.130 of Hoodi village, Krishnarajapura Hobli, Bengaluru East and whether that was the subject matter of the grant of 1 acre 10 guntas made in favour of the respondent – Trust herein. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, on consideration of the material placed before him has observed as follows- - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17881 WP No. 35956 of 2012 “In fact, the land in question was also inspected by this Authority and Surveyor's sketch has also been got prepared. As could be seen at the spot as well as per the sketch prepared, as contended by the Petitioner no 'pathway and cart road' leads to the land held by her from out of the land measuring 1A.10gs., granted in S.No.130 of Hoodi village in favour of the Respondent/Trust and held by it. In fact, out of the land measuring 1A.16gs., an extent of 05 gs., of 'cart road' and an extent of 01 g., 'pathway' totally 06 gs., classified as 'Kharab' is excluded and it is only 1A.10gs., of land has been granted in favour of the Respondent/Trust and it is in possession of that that portion of the land granted to it. Accordingly, the Respondent/Trust has put up the compound within the area of the land granted to it. Hence, the Petitioner cannot contend that the Respondent/Trust has put up obstruction to approach her land through the land in S.No.130 by putting up compound particularly when there is no any such 'cart road' and 'pathway' leading to her land through the land in S.No.130 of Hoodi village, Krishnarajapra Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk. In such a circumstance, an extent of 10 gs., of land out of 1A.10gs., of land which has already been granted in favour of the Respondent/Trust and handed over possession to it, cannot be reduced and reserved for 'cart road' and 'pathway' and/or granting the same in favour of the Petitioner does not arise.” - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17881 WP No. 35956 of 2012 4. It is, therefore, clear from the order of the Deputy Commissioner that even during the spot inspection that he had conducted, he has found that there was no cart road or pathway in existence and the land that was granted to the respondent – Trust was exclusive of the cart road and the pathway that were in existence in Sy.No.130. 5. If the Deputy Commissioner has recorded a clear finding of fact that apart from the cart road and pathway in Sy.No.130, the remaining 1 acre 10 guntas was granted to the respondent – Trust, the petitioner cannot obviously have any right to challenge the said grant. 6. A copy of the village map is also produced which indicates that the land of the petitioner i.e., Sy.No.129 is nodoubt abutting Sy.No.130, but there is no cart road or pathway indicated in Sy.No.129 or on the boundary of Sy.No.130. The village map that is produced indicates that the pathway that is shown - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17881 WP No. 35956 of 2012 is within Sy.No.130 and there is still a gap between the cart road and pathway in Sy.No.130. 7. In other words, there is no cart road or pathway as per the village map abutting Sy.No.130 of the petitioner to contend that she has an absolute right of access to his land and if the cart way was in existence in Sy.No.130 and if the same is not abutting the land of the petitioner in Sy.No.129, it is obvious that she cannot challenge the grant made in favour of the respondent - Trust, which is in Sy.No.130. I, therefore, find no reason to entertain this Writ Petition. This Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. 8. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending
Decision
interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39