Disposed

Zuari World India Limited v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Dec 2024WP/46/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

After purchasing land and developing a residential layout with unique security features, the petitioner challenged notices to remove construction blocking a public road. The Court ordered the removal of obstructions and installation of boom barriers with monitored entry/exit, balancing security needs with public access rights.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was ordered to remove obstructions at specified points and install boom barriers with deployed personnel to monitor access without denying public entry through the road within four week

Zuari World India Limited Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:52648 WP No. 46 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 46 OF 2023 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

ZUARI WORLD INDIA LIMITED FORMERLY KNOWN AS ADVENTS INFRA WORLD INDIA LIMITED

¶9

A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER INDIAN COMPANIES ACT,

¶10

HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT ADVENTS CENTRE, 1ST FLOOR NO.28, UNION STREET, CUBBON ROAD BENGALURU 560001. RFPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED PERSON SRI SRINIVAS B S

¶11

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. S.M.CHANDRASHEKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR H B., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:52648 WP No. 46 of 2023

¶19

VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU 5600001

¶20

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA 571401

¶21

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER PANDAVAPURA SUBDIVISION PANDAVAPURA 571434 MANDYA DISTRICT

¶22

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK SRIRANGAPATNA 571438 MANDYA DISTRICT

¶23

THE TAHSILDAR SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK SRIRANGAPATNA 571438 MANDYA DISTRICT

¶24

THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER HULIKERE GRAMA PANCHAYATH BELGOLA HOBLI SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK SRIRANGAPATNA 571438 MANDYA DISTRICT

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA FOR R1 TO R6;

¶27

SRI. B.J.SOMAYAJI, ADVOCATE FOR R7)

¶28

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 08.12.2022 ISSUED BY THE R6 BEARING NO. MSC/CR/420/2022-23 VIDE ANNEXURE - N AND NOTICE DATED 15.12.2022 BEARING NO. KRA.SUM/GRAPANHU/160/2022-23 VIDE ANNEXURE-

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:52648 WP No. 46 of 2023

¶31

P ISSUED BY R7; DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO ACT IN THE TRUE SPIRIT OF THE ORDER AND FACILITATE THE PETITIONER WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS TO ENJOY THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY IN TERMS OF THE SALE DEED AND RECTIFICATION DEED ANNEXURE- B AND G1.

¶32

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

The petitioner, after purchasing several lands in Hulikere Village, Belagol Hobli, Srirangapatna Taluk, has developed a Residential Layout in these lands. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Endorsement dated 08.12.2022 and the Notice 15.12.2022 [ Annexures – N & P ]. These Endorsement and notice are by the jurisdictional Tahsildar and the concerned Panchayat Development Officer [PDO] directing the petitioner to remove construction at certain points in the Layout.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:52648 WP No. 46 of 2023

¶37

It remains indisputable that the

¶38

petitioner has developed the properties not as a typical Residential Layout with open access but with certain unique features such as a common compound wall for the Layout and without separate compound wall for individual plots which could ensure security to the owners/inmates for the individual houses constructed in these plots. However, the petitioner has executed relinquishment deed relinquishing the areas shown in the Layout as Roads.

¶39

The petitioner's grievance with the

¶40

Tahsildar’s Endorsement is because it allows access to all through the Layout resulting in possible security threats to the property of the owners/inmates of the property if there is unhindered access, and in fact,

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:52648 WP No. 46 of 2023

¶43

Sri. S. M. Chandrashekar, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, canvassing in support of this grievance submits that multiple proceedings have been registered by the police and these proceedings even relate to loss of life. This Court, given the peculiarities of this case, as also the assertion on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner has closed a cart road as per the village map, has called upon the jurisdictional Tahsildar to inspect the Layout and file a report.

¶44

The Tahsildar has filed a report. The Tahsildar has pointed out that a Road [open to public] indicated in 'Blue' must be in terms of the original village map in the lands developed by the petitioner, who has the approval for the development of a Layout, but it has constructed a Road that is seen in 'Yellow'. This Report which has a sketch reads as under:

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:52648 WP No. 46 of 2023

¶47

Sri. S. M. Chandrashekar, on instructions, clarifies that the public will have access through the Road [marked in ‘ Yellow’ ] – the Subject Road - which has entry into the Layout at the point marked as ' AB ' and exit at the

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:52648 WP No. 46 of 2023

¶50

point marked ' CD '. However, the learned Senior counsel has emphasized that the petitioner must be permitted to have a gate at these points and monitor ingress and egress given the peculiarities, but without causing any obstruction to the public who may have to use the Subject Road.

¶51

In the light of this statement, the petitioner's representative, is permitted to file an affidavit, and in compliance, such affidavit is filed. As regards the development and the access through the Layout, the following is stated in this affidavit:

¶52

" The petitioner has developed more than 200 villas and apartments adjacent to this road, forming a township approved by the Karnataka Government's Commerce and Industries Department. The Sketch submitted by the Tahasildar indicating the road as ABCD road is available for access to Public. There

¶53

¶54

NC: 2024:KHC:52648 WP No. 46 of 2023

¶55

are untoward incidents and crimes happening in the vicinity, due to lack of security checking happening from point AB and CD as mentioned in the sketch. To mitigate such risks, the gate at point AB and proposed gate at point CD in the sketch is necessary and to avoid unauthorized entries, security personnel have been deployed. This arrangement is solely to monitor incidents. It is ensured that except for the unauthorized entries the access and movement along the road marked as A, B, C and D remain unrestricted and undisturbed."

¶56

When it is pointed out by both

¶57

Sri. B. J. Somayaji, and Sri. Rahul Cariappa, the learned counsels for the respondents that there is

¶58

a construction at the point ' CD ', Sri. S. M. Chandrashekar submits that the petitioner will remove this obstruction and construct a gate at the earliest, and that this Court must enable the petitioner to ensure that the entry through these two points by the general public is monitored without obstructions lest security of the

¶59

¶60

NC: 2024:KHC:52648 WP No. 46 of 2023

¶61

owners/inmates is compromised. The learned Senior counsel also submits that this Court must reserve liberty to approach the competent, if there is any requirement for increased security to the occupants of the properties without undermining the right of the general public to access the Subject Road.

¶62

Sri. Somayaji are heard in the light of the afore. This Court must, at the outset, observe that the undisputed fact that the petitioner has developed a Layout which is not a typical a Residential Layout, must have its play at this stage, especially with none of the individual plots within the Layout having a separate enclosure to prevent intrusions, while it cannot also be denied that the public must have access through the Subject Road . The balance between these two claims can

¶63

10 -

¶64

NC: 2024:KHC:52648 WP No. 46 of 2023

¶65

be managed justly and reasonably if the petitioner does not deny access to the public through this Subject Road , but there is general monitoring without prohibiting access for the sake of it.

¶66

The petitioner, to provide this

¶67

arrangement, must remove obstruction at the point ' CD ' and construct a boom barrier with deployment of necessary personnel. This must be done at the earliest, and the petitioner must also provide for such barrier at the point ‘ AB ’. This Court must reiterate that if the petitioner cannot deny access to the public without sound reasons, those who espouse the cause of the public cannot insist on a thoroughfare without regard to the peculiar circumstances.

¶68

As regards the petitioner's anxiety that despite all these measures there could be reasons

¶69

11 -

¶70

NC: 2024:KHC:52648 WP No. 46 of 2023

¶71

for commission of crime or intrusions affecting the privacy of the property owners/inmates, or even complaints of unjust denial of access, this Court is of the considered view that the competent from the police department must assess and that the Planning Authority must pass just orders before any coercive measures are taken, and this arrangement must prevail unless there is modification by the Planning Authority given the completed development. Hence, the following:

¶72

ORDER

¶73

[a] The petition stands disposed of directing the petitioner to remove the obstruction at the points ' AB ' and ' CD ' and install boom barriers within four [4] weeks from today with liberty to deploy requisite personnel to monitor,

¶74

12 -

¶75

NC: 2024:KHC:52648 WP No. 46 of 2023

¶76

but without denying access to the public through the Subject Road .

¶77

[b] If there is any occasion to alter the

¶78

arrangement, the petitioner shall approach the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police who shall, when so approached, inspect the development and access the requirement for change in the arrangement and based on such report, the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the Planning Authority for further redressal.

¶79

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶80

Zuari World India Limited v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zuari World India Limited v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Ashwini Vs State of Karnataka

Sacred Heart Degree College for Women Vs Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Sri. B. N. Venkatesh Vs the Chief Commissioner

Smt.Anjulamma Vs the Chief Commissioner

Sri. P R Radhakrishna Vs the Chief Commissioner

The Mysore Diocesan Society Vs State of Karnataka