Disposed

Smt M Shanthamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Dec 2024WP/61564/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition seeking relief against storm water drain construction and compound wall encroachment. The Court directed KIADB to remove encroachment of a watercourse in Sy.No.40 of Agara village within four months while leaving other grievances open.

What did the court decide?

M/s KIADB directed to remove encroachment of watercourse in Sy.No.40 of Agara village within four months; liberty granted to challenge land classification order.

Smt M Shanthamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:50963 WP No. 61564 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 61564 OF 2016 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT M.SHANTHAMMA WIFE OF LATE SHRI L.GOKUL REDDY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶9

SHRI G SANTOSH REDDY SON OF LATE SHRI L.GOKUL REDDY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

¶10

SHRI G.SATHYANARAYANA REDDY SON OF LATE SHRI L.GOKUL REDDY AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

¶11

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

ALL THE PETITIONERS RESIDING AT NO.203 BEGUR HOBLI, AGARA VILLAGE HSR LAYOUT POST, SARJAPURA MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560 102

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. GEETHADEVI M.P., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001

¶17

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:50963 WP No. 61564 of 2016

¶19

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

¶20

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SOUTH KANDAYA BHAVAN BENGALURU-560 009

¶21

THE THASILDAR BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK KANDAYA BHAVANA BENGALURU-560 009

¶22

BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWAGE BOARD I FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN KG ROAD BENGALURU-560 009 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN

¶23

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWAGE BOARD NO.720, SHIMSHA BHAVAN JAYANAGARA 8TH BLOCK 46TH CROSS BANGALORE-560 082

¶24

CHIEF ENGINEER STORM WATER DRAIN CLEARANCE WING BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE NO.2, 9^TH FLOOR, JAYANAGAR SHOPPING COMPLEX JAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560 011

¶25

MANTRI TECH ZONE PVT LTD FORMERLY KNOWN AS MANIPAL ETA INFORTECH PVT LTD HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT MANTRI HOUSE, NO.41 VITTAL MALLYA ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:50963 WP No. 61564 of 2016

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SMT.CHANDINI S., HCGP FOR R1, R3 AND R4 SRI.KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI.SANJEEV B.L., ADVOCATE FOR C/R5 & R6 SMT.NAMITHA MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.S.N.PRASHANTH CHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R7 SRI S.MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R8)

¶29

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING, TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE OFFICE OF THE R-1, 5 & 6 PERTAINING TO THE ILLEGAL ACTS OF SHIFTING THE STORM WATER DRAIN/ CHANNEL/ RAJA KALUVE FROM SY.NO.40 OF AGARA VILLAGE TO SY.NO.7 OF JAKKASANDRA VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH.

¶30

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

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

The petitioners assert ownership of certain extents in Sy.No.7 of Jakkasandra village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk and in Sy.No.40 of Agara Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. The petitioners have sought for the following relief.

¶34

[i] For direction restraining M/s BWSSB and M/s BBMP from realign /shifting the Storm Water Drain/ Raja Kaluve from Sy No. 40 of Agara Village to Sy No. 7 of

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:50963 WP No. 61564 of 2016

¶36

Jakkasandra village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South.

¶37

[ii] For direction restraining respondents from carrying our any civil work including digging and laying sewage pipes in 0.09 guntas of land in Sy No. 7 of Jakkasandra village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South

¶38

[iii] To consider the representation dated 11- 4- 2012 and 1-3-2014 at Annexure J & K respectively about the blocking of Raja Kaluve near Sy No. 41 and 40 of Agar village and to restore the flow of storm water drain as it existed prior to the acquisition of lands by M/s KIADB as shown in village maps and Sy Tippani.

¶39

This Court, on 24.01.2024, has directed a

¶40

survey of the lands observing that the order itself would constitute notice of the survey. A report is filed into this Court based on such survey. On 16.10.2024, the learned counsels for parties are heard, and the following questions are framed for disposal of the petition.

¶41

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:50963 WP No. 61564 of 2016

¶42

[a] Whether the petitioners can be granted any relief against construction of a Storm Water Drain¹ in the Kharab identified in Sy.No.7 of Jakkasandra Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South vide the order dated 01.12.2016 by the Joint Director of Land Records, Bengaluru, Urban District if this order remains unchallenged, and

¶43

(b) Whether there must be directions against the concerned respondents [including M/s KIADB] to remove cement compound wall, as mentioned in the Report.

¶44

Sri K. Krishna, a learned standing counsel

¶45

for M/s Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board [M/s KIADB ] [ the second respondent ], is called to take notice. Presently, M/s KIADB has filed an inspection Report along with a Sketch, and it is

¶46

1 The learned Counsel for M/s BWSS clarifies that pipes have been laid in Sy.No.7 of Jakkasandra village for the flow of treated water from STP constructed in the vicinity of these lands .

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:50963 WP No. 61564 of 2016

¶49

undisputed that this Sketch is based on the report that is filed by M/s BWSSB [ the fifth respondent ].

¶50

Smt. Geetha Devi M.P., the learned counsel

¶51

for the petitioners, is categorical that the petitioners would not seek any relief in the present petition on their grievance with the construction for laying sewage pipes in the land in Sy.No.7 of Jakkasandra village but would seek liberty to call in question the order dated 01.12.2016 by the Joint Director for Land Records, Bengaluru Urban District to pursue their grievance with such construction leading to inundation. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioners will confine this petition to their request for removal of construction of compound in Sy.No.40 of Agara village and encroachment of the watercourse [ Kaluve ] through this land leading to Bellandur lake in Survey No. 43 of Agara Village.

¶52

Smt. Geetha Devi M.P emphasises that the

¶53

petitioners are entitled for an appropriate direction in

¶54

¶55

NC: 2024:KHC:50963 WP No. 61564 of 2016

¶56

the light of the indisputable fact that the construction of compound and closure of water canal [ Kaluve ] through the land in Sy.No.40 of Agara village causes inundation of the adjacent lands, including the petitioners' lands in Sy.No.7 of Jakkasandra village and also in Sy.No.6 of the same village. The learned counsel relies upon the Inspection Report filed by M/s KIADB.

¶57

This Court must now record that Sri. K.

¶58

Krishna, Sri B.S. Nagaraj, who appears for Sri B.L. Sanjeev, Smt. Namitha Mahesh, who appears for Sri S.N. Prashanth, the learned counsels for the authorities, and Smt. Spoorthi V., the learned High Court Government Pleader, are categorical that a compound is indeed constructed on the Kaluve in the land in Sy.No.40 of Agara village and that such Kaluve is also closed. However, Sri S. Mahesh, the learned counsel for the eight respondent [ a lessee of a certain extent in Sy.No.40 of Agara Village under M/s

¶59

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:50963 WP No. 61564 of 2016

¶60

KIADB which has acquired this land ], submits that this Court may not grant any indulgence to the petitioners based on any of the inspection Reports as it is unilateral and without notice to all the lessees under M/s KIADB.

¶61

7. Sri S. Mahesh invites this Court's attention

¶62

to M/s KIADB’s Inspection Report to also canvass that it is acknowledged that as of today there is no Kaluve in the land in Sy.No.40 of Agara Village and the details in the revenue map of decades back cannot be a basis for opining that there must be a Kaluve through the land in Sy.No.40 of Agara village or that any portion of the compound wall must be removed.

¶63

This Court must opine that the authorities [the respondents] are categorical in one voice that the watercourse [ Kaluve ] through the land in Sy.No.40 of Agara village leads to Bellandur lake in Sy.No.43 of the same village and that this Kaluve is encroached.

¶64

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:50963 WP No. 61564 of 2016

¶65

These probablize the petitioners' case that encroachment of this watercourse [ Kaluve ] and construction of compound leads inundation when there is copious rain. The eighth respondent, as is canvassed by the learned counsel, does indeed dispute the existence of this Kaluve, but this respondent is only an allottee with leasehold rights under M/s KIADB and as such cannot traverse beyond what is specifically stated by M/s KIADB.

¶66

M/s KIADB, like the other respondents, is

¶67

categorical in stating that the watercourse [ Kaluve ] runs through Sy.No.40, which is acquired for industrial purposes. On behalf of the KIADB, it is stated thus in the report:

¶68

"ಭೂ �ಾಖ�ೆಗಳ ಸ�ಾಯಕ ��ೇ�ಶಕರ ಕ�ೇ��ಂದ ತ�ಾ��ರುವ ನ�ೆ ಮತು! ವರ"ಯಂ#ೆ ಅಗರ %ಾ&ಮದ ಸ'ೆ� ನಂ . 40 ರ() 1.20 *ೕ x 370 ೕ ಅಳ#ೆಯ 005 UÀÄ +ಾಲು'ೆ%ೆ , +ಾಂ-ೌಂ/���ದು0 , ಸ'ೆ� ನಂ . 40 ರಆ2 . 3 . ��ಾರರು ಪ5ಣ� ಒತು!ವ�8ಾ9ರುವ:�ಾ;ವರ"ಇರುತ!�ೆ . ಅದರಂ#ೆ ಸ=ಳಪ�>ೕಲ?ೆ 8ಾಡ�ಾ;ಸ'ೆ� ನಂ . 40 ರ()ನ+ಾಲು'ೆಯು ಭೂAಾBCೕನ'ಾ;ರುವಪ&�ೇಶದ()ಬರುE!ದು0 , 1.20 *ೕ x 150 *ೕ ಅಳ#ೆಯ 0- 01^3\4 ಗು F�!ೕಣ�ದ+ಾಲು'ೆಯು +ಾಂ-ೌಂ/ಒಳಗGೆ ಬರುತ!�ೆ .

¶69

10 -

¶70

NC: 2024:KHC:50963 WP No. 61564 of 2016

¶71

ಉIದ 1.20 *ೕ x 220 *ೕ ಅಳ#ೆಯ +ಾಲು'ೆಯು +ಾಂ-ೌಂ/ �ೊರಗGೆ ಬರುE!ದು0 , ಸದ� +ಾಲು'ೆಯುJೌEಕ'ಾ;ಇರುವ:ದುಕಂಡುಬಂ"ರುವ:"ಲ) ."²

¶72

The Sketch annexed to this Report in its material

¶73

part reads as under:

¶74

2 The translation in brief reads that it is confirmed, as reported by the Assistant Director of Land Records, that there is a watercourse [Kaluve] in the land bearing Survey No. 40 of Agra village, and that this Watercourse is now closed .

¶75

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:50963 WP No. 61564 of 2016

¶76

In the light of these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that M/s KIADB, an instrumentality of the State, which admits that there is a watercourse [ Kaluve ] running through the land in Sy.No.40 of Agara Village acquired by it, must ensure that the encroachment of the Kaluve is removed after due notice and opportunity to its allottees and M/s.KIADB must complete this exercise at the earliest. When queried, Sri K. Krishna submits that the M/s. KIADB must be allowed a minimum of four[4] months to ensure that appropriate action is initiated to remove the construction of compound and encroachment of Kaluve. In the light of the afore, the following:

¶77

ORDER

¶78

[A] The petition stands disposed of directing M/s.KIADB [ the second respondent ] to take all such action as is necessary to remove the encroachment of the

¶79

12 - NC: 2024:KHC:50963 WP No. 61564 of 2016

¶80

watercourse [ Kaluve ] in Sy.No.40 of Agara village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk within four [4] months.

¶81

[B] M/s. KIADB is reserved with liberty to issue notice to its allottees for initiation of action to clear the encroachment.

¶82

[C] The petitioners, subject to all just exceptions in law, are reserved with liberty to call in question the order dated 01.12.2016 by the Joint Director for Land Records, Bengaluru Urban District insofar as reserving 19 guntas of land in Sy.No.7 of Jakkasandra village as 'B' kharab land.

¶83

Sd/-

¶84

(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶85

SA ct:sr

Smt M Shanthamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt M Shanthamma 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

Dr. R. Yatish Ramalingaiah Vs the Bbmp Commissioner

Sri K Swarup Kumar Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Shantha Bai Vs the State of Karnataka

Hotel Paraag Limited Vs the Commissioner

Smt. Bindu Ramanan Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Sri. N. Narasimhaiah Vs the Commissioner