Disposed

Sri K S Ramesh v. the President / Secretary

Karnataka HC20 Jan 2023WP/38965/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the failure of authorities to restore a civic amenity site and maintain a road in the ITI Layout. The Court held that petitioners were not the right persons to invoke Writ jurisdiction as the case involved disputed questions of facts, directing the parties to approach the Civil Court.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; respondents directed to stand by for ten days while petitioners reserve liberty to approach the Civil Court.

Sri K S Ramesh Vs the President / Secretary — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - WP No. 38965 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 38965 OF 2015 (BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. K. S. RAMESH, S/O SRI K. V. SAMPANGI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.7, OPP. BALAJI ENCLAVE, HOSAPALYA MAIN ROAD, MANGAMMANAPALYA, NEXT TO ITI LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 068.

¶9

SRI. MUNI REDDY, S/O SRI. VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.8, HOSAPALYA MAIN ROAD, MANGAMMANAPALYA, NEXT TO ITI LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 068.

¶10

Digitally signed by CHETAN B C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SRI. K. SRINIVAS, S/O SRI. R. KUPPUSWAMY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.9, OPP. BALAJI ENCLAVE, HOSAPALYA MAIN ROAD, MANGAMMANAPALYA,

¶12

¶13

WP No. 38965 of 2015

¶14

NEXT TO ITI LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 068.

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. LAKSHMINARAYANA RAO K. R., ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

THE PRESIDENT / SECRETARY, ITI EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., DOORAVANINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 016.

¶19

THE COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BANGALORE-560 020.

¶20

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, STATE OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶21

THE COMMISSIONER. BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N. R. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 002.

¶22

MR. LAWRENCE T. S., S/O LATE T. L. SUNNY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 1462, 17TH CROSS, 5^TH MAIN, H. S. R. LAYOUT, SECTOR-VII, BANGALORE-560 102.

¶23

3 - WP No. 38965 of 2015

¶24

SRI. M. S. NIRANJANA, S/O SOMASHEKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT MUGALAVALLI, CHIKKAMAGALORE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALORE-577 101.

¶25

SRI. S. SUBRAMANYAM S/O SRI M. SINGARAVELU ACHAR, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1662, B-TYPE, AUSTING TOWN, 3^RD STAGE, BANGALORE-560 047.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. PRAKASH T HEBBAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. R. SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R3; SRI. H. DEVENDRAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 NOTICE TO R5 IS HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER DATED 19.07.2022; NOTICE TO R7 IS HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER DATED 19.07.2022; R6 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 AND R-4 TO RECLAIM/RESTORE THE CIVIC AMENITY SITE TO ITS ORIGINAL POSITION SITUATED IN SY NO.18/7A AND 18/6B EAR-MARKED AS PER THE APPROVED LAYOUT PLAN ISSUED BY THE R-2 TO THE R-1 SOCIETY PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G AND KNOWN AS ITI LAYOUT AND ETC.,

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

¶31

WP No. 38965 of 2015

¶32

ORDER

¶33

Petitioners are knocking at the doors of Writ Court

¶34

with the following prayers:

¶35

“a. Direct the 2nd Respondent and 4th Respondent to reclaim/restore the civic amenity site to its original position situated in Sy.No.18/7A and 18/6B ear-marked as per the approved layout plan issued by the 2nd Respondent to the 1st Respondent society produced at ANNEXURE-G and known as ITI Layout.

¶36

b. Direct the 4th Respondent to maintain the connecting approach road i.e. 18th Main Road, and also drain which essential for the benefit and use of the petitioners and which is being used by the petitioners since several years.

¶37

c. Direct the 5th and 6th Respondents not to put up any construction on the civic amenity site situated in Sy.No.18/7A and 18/6B earmarked as per the approved layout plan produced at ANNEXURE-G.”

¶38

After service of notice, the 1^st Respondent -

¶39

Housing Society is represented by its Senior Panel Counsel. Respondent No.2-BDA has entered appearance through its Panel Counsel and so also Respondent No.4BBMP, notice to private Respondent Nos.5 & 6 are held

¶40

¶41

WP No. 38965 of 2015

¶42

sufficient as they have been served with the Court notice. Application seeking impleadment of a person who is putting up construction on the subject property as Respondent No.7 is favoured. Learned Advocates appearing for the contesting Respondents vehemently oppose the Petition contending that Petitioners are not the residents of the concerned Layout and therefore, what happens within the Layout is not a matter to be agitated at their instance before the Writ Court. This factual position is not disputed by the Petitioners.

¶43

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers this Court declines indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the submission made by the contesting Respondents herein. It is a well settled position of law that a million questions may arise in the Petition but Writ Court would not venture into all but only treating those causes brought before it by the right person.

¶44

¶45

WP No. 38965 of 2015

¶46

The above apart, this Petition involves disputed questions of facts and the writ jurisdiction is ill-suited to adjudge the same as rightly contended by the learned Panel Counsel appearing for 1^st Respondent-Society. Petitioners can ventilate their grievances before the appropriate Civil Court.

¶47

In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of f reserving liberty to the Petitioners to approach the Civil Court if they so desire in accordance with law. To facilitate such approachment, the Respondents are directed not to precipitate the matter for a period of ten days. In that regard, all contentions are kept open.

¶48

No costs.

¶49

DS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

Sri K S Ramesh v. the President / Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K S Ramesh v. the President / Secretary

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

Smt Gowramma Vs the State Government

Sri Jayaprakasha a Vs State of Karnataka

Sri v Divakar Vs the State of Karnataka

Nagaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs Summaiya Khanum Vs the Bangalore Development Authority

Smt Hameeda Begum Vs the Bangalore Development Authority