Partly allowed

David Dsouza v. the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (Bwssb)

Karnataka HC17 Sept 2021WP/15590/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed this writ petition partly, granting an interim injunction restraining BWSSB from blocking the road, and remanded the matter to the trial court to decide the money application pending on merits within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Temporary injunction against BWSSB not to block the passage/road and petitioner's usage; Writ petition remanded to trial court for ad hoc adjudication within 30 days.

David Dsouza Vs the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶2

BEFORE

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.15590 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)

¶5

BETWEEN :

¶6

DAVID DSOUZA S/O LATE MR. JOHN DSOUZA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT NO.19, MARWILL HALL REST HOUSE ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001 … PETITIONER

¶7

(BY MISS.GANGA GANAPATHY, ADV. FOR SRI. MANMOHAN P. N., ADV.)

¶8

AND :

¶9

THE BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD – (BWSSB) KAVERI BHAVAN, 2^ND FLOOR BENGALURU – 560 001 REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN

¶10

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER B.W.S.S.B., OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (STP) 48^TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR 8^TH BLOCK CHALLAGATTA VALLEY

¶11

1^ST FLOOR, SHIMSHAH BHAVAN BENGALURU – 560 070

¶12

¶13

3. BHRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGAR PALIKE NR SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002 REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶14

… RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. K. B. MONESH KUMAR, ADV. FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. K. N. PUTTEGOWDA, ADV. FOR R3)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23.12.2020 PASSED IN O.S.NO.6599/2020 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-23) IN SO FAR AS NOT GRANTING AN ORDER OF TEMPORARY INJUNCTION AS SOUGHT FOR IN IA NO.5 AND 6 AND (PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-R) AND CONSEQUENTLY GRANT EXPARTE ORDER OF TEMPORARY INJUNCTION AS PRAYED FOR IN IA NO. 5 AND 6.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Aggrieved by the issuance of emergent notice by

¶20

the trial Court upon an Interlocutory Application filed by the petitioner (plaintiff in the trial Court) and not granting an exparte temporary injunction against the defendants therein, the plaintiff therein has preferred

¶21

this writ petition.

¶22

¶23

The petitioner has filed O.S.No.6599/2020

¶24

before the XXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-23) contending that they are the owners of 4 acres 9 guntas of land in Sy.No.103 situated at Kowdenahalli, Krishnarajapuram village, Krishnarajapuram Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk now Bengaluru East Taluk and that they have an easementary right over the road existing in Sy.No.114 of Kowdenahalli, Krishnarajapuram Village, Krishnarajapuram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk to approach their land. It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondents (defendants before the trial Court) are trying to block the said access and the same is illegal. On the said grounds, the petitioner herein preferred O.S.No.6599/2020 before the trial Court, wherein, they have also filed an Interlocutory Application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC wherein, they have asked for

¶25

¶26

granting of temporary injunction restraining defendant Nos.1 and 2 (respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein) from interfering with peaceful usage of road by the plaintiff (the petitioner herein). The trial Court has not granted an exparte interim order but has issued emergent notice on the said Interlocutory Application to the defendants. Aggrieved by the said order of refusing to grant exparte interim order, this writ petition is filed.

¶27

It is the contention of the petitioner that the said road is the only access to their lands and the respondents intend to block the same and they have easementary rights over the said road.

¶28

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2, who is the contesting respondents herein submitted that the said land in dispute has been acquired in accordance with law and handed over to

¶29

¶30

respondent No.1 – BWSSB and the land is to be utilized for the establishment of a sewage treatment plant. It is further contended that the petitioner has no easementary right over the same and they have access to their land by another road.

¶31

This Hon’ble Court was pleased to grant an interim order granting temporary injunction against the respondents not to block the passage of the road in question and not to disturb the usage of it by the petitioner for a period of four weeks.

¶32

Both the parties fairly submit that at present, all the defendants are served and are represented. It would be appropriate for the trial Court to decide on the issue by verifying the necessary documents. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that till such decision is taken by the trial Court, the interim order granted by this Court needs

¶33

¶34

to be continued otherwise the entire suit becomes infructuous.

¶35

The learned counsel for the contesting

¶36

respondent Nos.1 and 2 fairly accedes to the said request of the petitioner. Hence, the following:-

¶37

ORDER

¶38

(i) The writ petition is partly allowed. The present writ petition is remanded back to the trial Court for further adjudication including Interlocutory Application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC.

¶39

(ii) The trial Court shall decide the said Interlocutory Application whether to grant temporary injunction or not as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 30 days from the date of the parties required to appear before the trial Court by this order.

¶40

¶41

(iii) The parties shall appear before the trial Court on 29.09.2021 without further notice.

¶42

(iv) There shall be a temporary injunction against BWSSB not to block the passage/road/B schedule property to the plaint and not to disturb the usage of it by the petitioner till further orders by the trial Court.

¶43

(v) The observations made in the writ petition either while granting the interim order or in the final order shall not influence the decision of the trial Court and the trial Court shall take independent decision based upon the material placed before it.

¶44

(vi) No order as to cost.

¶45

MH/-

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

David Dsouza v. the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (Bwssb)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

David Dsouza v. the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (Bwssb)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nagaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Sri R Maria Soosai Vs Sri Chikkaramappa

Naveen Mahesh Vs Riad Mahmood

G v Sarvamangalamma Vs G Veeranna

G v Subramanya Naidu Vs Smt Mamta Desai

Mr Shankarappa Vs Rajappa