A PIL was dismissed for want of merits. The High Court found the petitioner failed to substantiate allegations of illegal encroachment on government land as the approved layout issued by the competent authority showed no violation, and third-party rights existed in the sold villas.
The writ petition is dismissed as it is devoid of merits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.2422 OF 2021 (BDA-PIL)
BETWEEN:
SRI CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O RAMAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 1ST CROSS, AMBEDKAR NAGAR NEAR GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL WHITEFIELD POST, BENGALURU-560 066
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.HEGDE RAMAKRISHNA S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
2
BENGALURU-560020 REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER
3
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.VANI.H, AGA FOR R1, R7 & R8; SRI.MURUGESH.V.CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI.L.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI.A.S.PONNANNA, SR.ADVOCATE FOR SMT.LEELA.P.DEVADIGA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R6; SRI.M.S.SHYAMSUNDAR, ADVOCATE FOR APPLICANT IN IA.2/2021)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 1. A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER / DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 AND 2 TAKE AN APPROPRIATE LEGAL ACTION IN REMOVING THE ILLEGAL ENCROACHMENT OF PUBLIC / GOVERNMENT LAND BY THE RESPONDENT NOS.3, 4, 5 AND 6 IN SY. NO. 198 AND 199 OF KANNAMANGALA VILLAGE BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus
to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to take legal action and remove illegal encroachment on government land by the respondent
4
Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6 in Sy.Nos.198 and 199 of Kannamangala Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk.
The present writ petition is filed in the nature of public interest litigation by alleging that the respondent No.3 represented by respondent Nos.4 and 5 along with a developer i.e., respondent 6 had developed land in Sy.Nos.198 and 199 by encroaching adjoining lands bearing Sy.Nos.166, 197 and 163. The petitioner having found the encroachment, submitted a detailed representation to the respondent No.2 to take appropriate action against the illegal encroachers and cancel the layout plan. The petitioner is before this Court alleging inaction on the part of the respondent No.2 in not taking appropriate action.
have filed statement of objections and have stoutly denied the entire averments made in the writ petition. Refuting the
5
averments made in the writ petition, the respondent Nos.4 to 6 have contended that the competent authority has passed conversion order in Sy.No.198 to an extent of 11 acres 36 guntas excluding 3 guntas and 8 acres 11 guntas in Sy.No.199 thereby excluding 9 guntas. The total 12 guntas which is not the subject matter of conversion order in Sy.Nos.198 and 199 squarely falls in the area earmarked for park and the same is not at all utilized for construction of villas as alleged by the petitioner herein. The respondents have further contended that they have not put any construction over B-kharab land as reflected in the sanctioned plan and therefore, the allegations made in the writ petition are baseless and are not substantiated by any cogent documents. Reiterating the defence set up in the statement of objections, the respondent Nos.4 to 6 have further contended that the layout formed by them is only in Sy.Nos.198 and 199 and they have not encroached either over the 12 guntas B-kharab land or in the adjoining lands bearing Sy.Nos.166, 197 and 163.
6
given our anxious consideration to the pleadings set out in the writ petition and we have also carefully examined the documents which are placed on record. We have also examined the statement of objections filed by respondent Nos.4 to 6.
7
Nos.4 to 6, the petitioner except placing on record the conversion order, approved layout and one digital photograph showing the topography of the layout, has not placed on record any documents indicating illegal construction undertaken by the respondent Nos.4 to 6. In the digital photograph furnished at Annexure-G, the petitioner has made an attempt to indicate that there are water tanks in Sy.Nos.198 and 199 and also a stream in Sy.No.199. In the digital photograph, the petitioner has also made an attempt to show that the villas are constructed by encroaching in Sy.No.166. However, when this photograph is examined by comparing with the approved layout issued by the respondent No.2, we would find that the digital photograph does not tally with the approved layout issued by the respondent No.2.
before this Court that the villas are constructed by abutting the adjoining lands as well as by encroaching over water tanks
8
and streams. However, this Court cannot accept the contention of the petitioner by placing reliance on the digital photograph which is placed on record as per Annexure-G. Even otherwise, if Annexure-G is compared with the approved layout which is sanctioned by the competent authority, the allegations that villas are constructed by encroaching over adjoining lands as well on the water tanks and streams appears to be misconceived.
8. On perusal of the approved layout, the plots are
well within the land which was the subject matter of conversion order and the layout is confined in an area measuring 20 acres 7 guntas. Except bald allegations in the writ petition and the photograph as per Annexure-G, the petitioner has failed to substantiate his claim by producing documentary evidence to establish the allegation in regard to encroachment made by the respondent Nos.4 to 6. The approved layout is produced by the petitioner at Annexure-F. The approved layout is a public document issued by a
9
competent authority and therefore, has got presumptive value. On perusal of the approved layout, we do not find any encroachment as alleged by the petitioner.
10
ORDER
The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed.
The pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/JUDGE
CA
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondents encroached upon government land and violated the terms of the conversion order in the construction of villas.
Whether the petitioner substantiated his allegation of encroachment with documentary evidence beyond bare allegations and a non-tallying photograph.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SRI CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O RAMAKRISHNAPPA
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
SMT. SHANTHAKUMARI
SRI MANOJ SAI NAMBURU
SMT. BOMMIREDDY INDIRAMMA
RITU RAJ AWASTHI
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
