Dismissed

Sri Pabba Reddy Kodandarami Reddy v. M/S Upkar Residences Pvt. Ltd.

Karnataka HC24 Nov 2023WA/61/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A two-judge Division Bench dismissed an intra-court appeal challenging a Single Judge's order. The Court upheld that roads in an approved layout must be used by the public, consistent with layout sanction conditions, and rejected the claim for an exclusionary injunction.

What did the court decide?

Consequential relief of injunction against respondents from interfering with layout was not granted.

Sri Pabba Reddy Kodandarami Reddy Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:42442-DB WA No. 61 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023 PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT WRIT APPEAL NO. 61 OF 2023 (LB-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI PABBA REDDY KODANDARAMI REDDY S/O RANGA REDDY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT SREE LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA TOWERS SY NO.75/6, 2^ND FLOOR OUTER RING ROAD NEAR NEW HORIZON GURUKUL ] SCHOOL BELANDUR BENGALURU-560 103.

¶7

…APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SRI SADANANDA G.SHASTRI., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by SHARADA VANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

M/S UPKAR RESIDENCES PVT LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI. K.H. KHAN AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.28, UPKAR TOWERS 9^th CROSS, 2^nd BLOCK JAYANGAR, BENGALURU 560 011

¶12

THE STATE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, GOVERNMETNT OF KARNATAKA BENGLAURU-560 001.

¶13

¶14

NC: 2023:KHC:42442-DB WA No. 61 of 2023

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (BMRDA) NO.1 ALI ASKAR ROAD BENGALURU-560 052

¶16

THE MEMBER SECRETARY SATELITE TOWN RING ROAD PLANNING AUTHORITY NO.1, ALI ASKAR ROAD, BENGLAURU-560 052.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SMT.LEELA P., DEVADIGA., ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1)

¶19

THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29/11/2022 PASSED IN WP NO.19574/2022, BY THIS HON BLE COURT IN ITS JURISDICTIONAL CAPACITY OF SINGLE BENCH AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY GRANTING CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF OF INJUNCTION AGAINST THE RESPONDENT NO.1, THEIR AGENTS OR ANYONE CLAIMING THROUGH THEM, FROM INTERFERING WITH THE PEACEFUL POSSESSION AND OCCUPATION OF ITS LAYOUT MORESO AT SOUTHERN PORTION OF SY.NO.532.

¶20

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

JUDGEMENT

¶22

This intra-court appeal seeks to lay a challenge to a

¶23

learned Single Judge's order dated 29.11.2022 whereby the first respondent’s W.P.No.19754/2022 came to be

¶24

disposed off with the observations that the petitioner cannot interdict the ingress and egress of the public at

¶25

¶26

NC: 2023:KHC:42442-DB WA No. 61 of 2023

¶27

large in an approved layout and therefore, there cannot be a concept of gated community.

¶28

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶29

and having perused the appeal papers, we decline indulgence in the matter being broadly in agreement with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge that the roads in the layout concerned can be made use of both by the residents of the layout and others as well. This is consistent with condition No.11 incorporated by the competent authority while sanctioning the layout plan. This view gains support also from a co-ordinate Bench decision of this Court in the case of Classic Orchards Property Owners vs. State of Karnataka in

¶30

W.A.Nos.3384-3387/2016, disposed off on 21.10.2016.

¶31

Learned Single Judge at para 16 has rightly observed as under:-

¶32

“16. In view of the aforesaid position of law and in view of the factual position narrated hereinabove and also in view of submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent –

¶33

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:42442-DB WA No. 61 of 2023

¶34

Authority that action would be taken against respondent No.4 pursuant to the notice already issued for removal of obstruction nothing remains fro consideration except to direct the respondent-Authority to ensure compliance of condition-11 of the sanctioned plan by respondent No.4 within an outer limit of three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order by removing the obstructions and not causing any obstruction to the users of the neighboring properties.”

¶35

In the absence of condition-11 subject to which the layout

¶36

plan was approved, we would have appreciated the contention of the appellant that the roads in the subject layout were exclusively meant for its residents and therefore, outsiders cannot as a matter of right tread the same. However, that is not the case. It hardly needs to be stated that there is no impediment in law as it now obtains that for special reasons even with the stipulation of the condition-11 a specific concession can be obtained at the hands of the authorities that despite of relinquishment of the roads and public amenity spaces, the said roads are not intended to be a thoroughfare and therefore, outsiders cannot as a matter of course can make use of the same.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2023:KHC:42442-DB WA No. 61 of 2023

¶39

In our considered view, such an arrangement would not militate the idea of such roads being relinquished to the concerned authority or the local body. That being said, we need to clarify that once the relinquishment is done, the land owner or the developer of the layout will have no right whatsoever, which they had before relinquishment was done.

¶40

In the above circumstances, this appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be and accordingly dismissed, costs having been made easy.

¶41

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

CBC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

Sri Pabba Reddy Kodandarami Reddy v. M/S Upkar Residences Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Pabba Reddy Kodandarami Reddy v. M/S Upkar Residences Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Prema Vs Sri. Kunji Ahmed

V R Santhosh Kumar Vs Govindaraju B

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri Sidda Naika T

Srirupa Roy Vs Lalit Kumar

Bengaluru Rakshana Sangha (R) Vs Rajarajeshwari Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.

Sri.H.D. Srinivas Vs Sindhu Roopesh