Partly allowed

Balaji Garden Layout Welfare Association v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC2 Dec 2024WP/1739/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A residents' welfare association challenged BBMP's order directing removal of compound walls blocking access to roads in its layout, on a neighbouring owner's representation. The Court, with consent partly, directed removal of obstructions at the Third and Fourth Cross Roads within eight weeks, failing which the Engineer would remove them.

What the court decided

AI extract

Balaji Garden Layout Welfare Association Vs… — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:49442 WP No. 1739 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1739 OF 2022 (LB-BMP)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

BALAJI GARDEN LAYOUT WELFARE ASSOCIATION BALAJI GARDEN LAYOUT 14^TH CROSS NAGANATHAPURA MAIN ROAD NEAR SHIVA REDDY LAYOUT SINGASANDRA, BANGALORE-560 100 REP BY ITS VICE-PRESIDENT RUDRA SWAMY JOY

¶7

.…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. DEVENDRA GOWDA R R.,ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE HEAD OFFICE AT HUDSON CIRCLE BANGALORE-560002.

¶12

JOINT COMMISSIONER BURHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BOMMANAHALLI ZONE BENGALURU-560068.

¶13

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BEGUR SUB DIVISION DEVARACHIKKANAHALLI MAIN ROAD

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:49442 WP No. 1739 of 2022

¶16

BEGURU, BENGALURU-560114.

¶17

BASAVARAJ B. HARAPANAHALLI S/O BASAPPA, AGED 63 YEARS, R/AT SITE NO. 45, 4^TH CROSS, MARUTHINAGARA LAYOUT, NAGANATHAPURA VILLAGE, ELECTRONIC CITY POST, BENGALURU-560 100.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SMT.SUMITHRA G.M, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SARTIHA KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. M. NARAYANA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. N. BHAVYA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUITON OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 29.12.2021 ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE R2 ON THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY SOME DISGRUNTLED PERSONS WHO IS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE AFFAIRS OF THE RESIDENTS OF PETITIONERS ASSOCIATION (22.12.2021) DIRECTING THE R3 TO REMOVE THE COMPOUND WALL PUTUP IN THE PETITIONERS LAYOUT AND THEREBY TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER ASSOCIATION DATED 07.01.2022 ANNEXURE-D.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

¶23

NC: 2024:KHC:49442 WP No. 1739 of 2022

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The dispute in this petition is between the Welfare Association incorporated by the owners of a residential layout [ Balaji Garden Layout ] and one of the owners of a property in the adjacent layout [ Shiv Reddy Layout ]. The owner of a property in the adjacent layout [ Shiv Reddy Layout] has filed a representation with the second respondent alleging that the petitioner has constructed a compound blocking access through the Roads in the Balaji Garden Layout to him and others similarly placed. The second respondent, upon receiving such representation, has directed the jurisdictional Assistant Executive Engineer [ the third respondent ] to remove the compound constructed by the petitioner.

¶27

The Joint Commissioner has also directed the petitioner to remove the compound [ obstruction ]. The petitioner alleges that the Joint Commissioner,

¶28

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:49442 WP No. 1739 of 2022

¶29

without opportunity and by a single line order, has directed removal of the compound [ obstruction ]. This Court on 02.06.2022, has appointed a learned member of the Bar, as the Court Commissioner calling for inspection of the layouts and a report including the sketch of the Roads in these layouts. In compliance, the Court Commissioner has filed his report with a sketch.

¶30

Sri Devendra Gowda R.R., the learned

¶31

counsel for the petitioner, Sri M. Narayana Bhat, the learned counsel for the fourth respondent, and Smt. Sumithra G.M., the learned counsel for the first to third respondents, are heard for final disposal of the petition examining the Commissioner’s report/sketch This sketch that shows two adjacent layouts¹ read as under:

¶32

1 The Petitioner’s Layout [Balaji Garden Layout] is marked in ‘Red’ and the Adjacent Layout [Shiv Reddy] is marked in ‘Blue’. The obstructions are marked in ‘Yellow’ .

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:49442 WP No. 1739 of 2022

¶35

At the outset this Court must record that

¶36

there is unanimity between Sri Devendra Gowda R.R. and Sri M. Narayana Bhat that the petitioner need not be called upon to remove the construction of the compound [ obstruction ] at the First and Second Cross Roads of the Balaji Garden layout. The learned counsels however differ on whether this Court must direct the petitioner to remove the compound at both

¶37

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:49442 WP No. 1739 of 2022

¶38

the Third and Fourth Cross Roads in this Layout. Sri Devendra Gowda R.R. submits that this Court, given the circumstances of the case, must direct the petitioner to remove the compound constructed at the entrance of either the Third or Fourth Cross Roads, and Sri M Narayana Bhat canvasses that the construction of the compound both at the Third and fourth cross Road must be removed.

¶39

If the proposition is that there must be right of access through the roads in layout formed with the approval of the Planning Authority, this proposition must equally apply even when there are unapproved layouts. If this proposition is applied, this Court cannot permit the petitioner to make a choice between the two Roads. Therefore, this Court must direct the petitioner to remove the construction that blocks access to the Third and Fourth cross Road in the petitioner’s Layout [ Balaji Garden Layout ]. When queried, Sri Devendra Gowda R.R.

¶40

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:49442 WP No. 1739 of 2022

¶41

submits that these obstructions would be removed within eight [8] weeks and if the petitioner fails to remove, this Court may call upon the third respondent to remove the obstruction. In the light of the afore, the following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

The petition is allowed-in-part permitting

¶44

the petitioner to remove the construction that blocks access to the Third and Fourth cross Road in Balaji Garden Layout as per the Court

¶45

Commissioner's Report. The petitioner is permitted to remove this obstruction within eight [8] weeks from today and directing the third respondent to remove the construction only if the petitioner fails to remove such obstruction over the next eight[8] weeks.

¶46

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶47

Balaji Garden Layout Welfare Association v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Balaji Garden Layout Welfare Association v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Cauvery Super Speciality Hospital Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Bhaskar a, Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Ajay Kumar Agarwal Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Mr. Anand Annamalai Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Praneeth P Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Manjunath N Vs State of Karnataka