Allowed

M/S G M Property Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Dec 2024WP/6737/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition challenging the obstruction of public roads designated for access to the petitioner's residential layout by the fourth respondent. The Court directed the third respondent to fill the dug-up areas to restore access within four weeks, noting that the roads were confirmed public and no gated community approval existed for the obstructing party.

What did the court decide?

Direction to third respondent to fill dug-up area and restore access through 2nd Cross Road and 5th Cross Road within four weeks.

M/S G M Property Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:49930 WP No. 6737 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6737 OF 2022 (LB-BMP)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

M/S G. M. PROPERTY DEVELOPERS PVT LTD

¶7

REP BY SITE ENGINEER

¶8

MR MALLAYYA HIREMANTH

¶9

AGED 40 YEARS, GM REJOYZ NO 158/1 8^TH MAIN, 8^TH CROSS MALLESHWARAM

¶10

BANGALORE 560003.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. DIWAKARA K, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ADITYA D.,ADVOCATE AND SRI. HITESH GOWDA B.J., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY CHIEF SECRETARY

¶15

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560001.

¶17

BRUHAT BENGLAURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE HEAD OFFICE, HUDSON CIRCLE BANGALORE 560002.

¶18

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BEGUR SUB DIVISION BBMP, BANGALORE 560068.

¶19

KRISHNA GARDEN INN CITY LAYOUT REP BY PRESIDENT RAVINDRA

¶20

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC:49930 WP No. 6737 of 2022

¶22

DODDAKAMMANAHALLI MAIN ROAD TEJASWINI NAGAR, BANNERGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE 560083.

¶23

SHRI RAMESH ARADHYA AGED MAJOR R/AT KRISHNA GARDEN INN CITY LAYOUT DODDAKAMMANAHALLI MAIN ROAD TEJASWINI NAGAR, BANNERGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE 560083.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SMT.CHANDINI., HCGP FOR R1; SMT. H.S. SANGEETHA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. N.R. JAGADEESHWARA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3; SRI. MOHAMED SHAFIULLA, ADVOCATE FOR R4; NOTICE TO R5 IS HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER DATED 21.08.2024)

¶26

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TODIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO REFRAIN FROM INTERVENING IN ITS LAWFUL ACTIVIES UNDER THE FALSE PRETEXT OF CARRING OUT UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES OWING TO THE ILL INTERPRETATIONS OF LAW BY THE RESPONDENTS.DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS.

¶27

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

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:49930 WP No. 6737 of 2022

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

The petitioner has developed a residential layout in Sy. Nos.41/5 and 41/7 of Kammanahalli Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, and such development, as could be seen from the records annexed to the writ petition, is pursuant to the Work Order dated 04.02.2014 issued by the Bangalore Development Authority affirming the approval of the layout and permitting execution of the development.

¶33

According to the petitioner, the access to this layout is through the adjacent layout developed by the fourth respondent. The third respondent has issued Communication dated 06.08.2012 [AnnexureA] stating that the access to the petitioner's layout will be through a Public Road named '2^nd Cross Road and 5^th Cross Road' in the layout developed by the fourth respondent. The petitioner's cause for the present petition is the alleged obstruction by the fourth respondent preventing the access to the

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:49930 WP No. 6737 of 2022

¶36

purchasers from the petitioner through the aforesaid public roads.

¶37

Sri K Diwakara, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the aforesaid circumstances and the photographs that are produced along with the petition and as additional documents, submits that the fourth respondent continues to block the access to the Public Roads and has in fact put up a board stating that any person accessing the petitioner's layout through its layout shall do so at their own risk and consequence. The fourth respondent has remained absent though served.

¶38

Smt. H S Sangeetha, who appears on behalf of Sri N R Jagadeeshwara, the learned counsel for the third respondent, submits that the Communication dated 06.08.2012 is issued after confirming that the 2^nd Cross Road and 5^th Cross Road are public roads and that the petitioner, and

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:49930 WP No. 6737 of 2022

¶41

every person claiming under the petitioner, can access their sites in the Layout developed by the petitioner through these public roads and there cannot be any obstruction.

¶42

The petitioner's case is vindicated by this stand. There is nothing on record to justify the continuance of obstruction through the public roads, and perhaps, justification for obstruction could have been if there could be approval in favour of the fourth respondent for a Gated Community . In the absence thereof, this Court must allow this petition with suitable directions. When Sri K Diwakar is heard in the light of the afore, the learned Senior Counsel is categorical that the obstruction is because the public roads are dug up and the petitioner will extend all assistance, if required by the third respondent, to ensure that the digging is closed and there is renewed access through the aforesaid roads. In the light of the afore, the following:

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:49930 WP No. 6737 of 2022

¶45

ORDER

¶46

[a] The petition is allowed directing the third respondent to take all measures to fill up the area that is dug to cause obstruction and access through the 2^nd Cross Road and 5^th Cross Road . The petitioner is directed to extend all such assistance as may be required by the third respondent.

¶47

[b] The third respondent is directed to take all measures as aforesaid within a period of four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, and the petitioner is reserved with liberty to file such representation within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶48

SD/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶49

AN/-

M/S G M Property Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S G M Property Developers Pvt. Ltd. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.M.Lakshmidevamma Vs the Chief Officer

B. Chandrashekar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Muthyala Karthik Vs the Commissioner

Vyvasaya Seva Sahakara Sangha Niyamita Vs State of Karnataka

Abdul Rasheed Vs the Commissioner

Smt. T. N. Manjula Vs the Government of Karnataka