IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO.18296 OF 2018 ( BDA ) Between:
Smt. A.P. Lakshmi, W/o A.R.Panduranga, Age 58 years, Residing at No.500, 7th Main, 11th Cross, Girinagar 2nd Stage, Bengaluru – 560 085. … Petitioner (By Sri. Basavaraj V Sabarad, Advocate) And:
1. The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority T.Chowdaiah Road, Kumarapark West, Bengaluru 560 020.
2. The Engineer Officer-I Bengaluru Development Authority, South Division, Bengaluru – 560 020.
3. The Asst. Executive Engineer Bengaluru Development Authority, South Dision, Bengaluru – 560 070.
4. Vishwabharathi House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., No.35, Ratnavilas Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore – 560 004. Represented by its Administrator/Secretary. ... Respondents (By Sri M.V. Charati, Advocate for R1 to R3 Sri Abijith K.S, Advocate for Sri B.L. Sanjeev, Advocate for R4) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondents to take further action on the basis of orders passed by R2 at Annexure-T and T1 dated 05.06.2017 for removing encroachment in the site allotted to the petitioner; consider the representation dated 02.02.2017 submitted by the petitioner vide Annexure-S and comply with the directions of this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.6945/2008 and connected cases disposed of on 16.11.2010 vide Annexure-B and the order dated 17.01.2012 in W.A.No.17320-347/2011 (LA-BDA) as per Annexure-J for removing encroachment in the site allotted to the petitioner, issue conveyance deed/rectification deed, possession certificate and all other necessary documents in respect of site No.3386, 4th Phase of VHBCS Layout, Girinagar, Bengaluru.
This writ petition coming on for preliminary hearing - B Group this day, the court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner contends that after insertion of Section 38B to the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (‘the Act’ for short), respondent No.4 – Vishwabharathi House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., made an application to the Bangalore Development Authority (‘BDA’) to make bulk allotment of land for formation of residential layout and the same was approved by the Government of Karnataka.
2. It is the allegation of the petitioner that despite the same, the BDA did not fix the price for bulk allotment for several years. The society and allottees of sites filed writ petitions seeking appropriate orders and directions. The Hon’ble Court issued several directions to the BDA and others. In one of such Writ Appeal Nos.17320-347/2011, the action of BDA to remove encroachments was upheld. Even after issuance of directions, the BDA did not comply with the directions.
In lieu of site allotted earlier to the petitioner by the Society and on the basis of seniority list another site No.3386 was allotted on the additional payment made by the petitioner.
3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though proceedings were initiated by the BDA as per Annexures-T and T1, to evict the unauthorized occupants over the site in question, the same has not reached the expected results. Hence, this writ petition is filed seeking for mandamus directing the respondents to take further action on the basis of the orders passed by respondent No.2 at Annexures-T dated 05.06.2017 and T1 dated 23.06.2017 for removing encroachment in the site allotted to the petitioner; consider the representation dated 02.02.2017 submitted by the petitioner vide Annexure-S to issue necessary documents in respect of allotted site No.3386, 4th phase of VHBCS Layout, Girinagar, Bengaluru.
4. It is the contention of the panel counsel appearing for the BDA that many of these alleged unauthorized occupants have already filed civil suits against Society-respondent No.4 and the disputed question relating to the title being involved, further proceedings relating to the removal of encroachment would be subject to the pending litigations.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the material on record.
6. It would be apposite to refer to the order of the Division Bench dated 06.06.2018 in writ petition No.6945/2008 and connected matter, whereby this Court has observed that going through the context and nature of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.18496/2007, it is evident that this Court in its wisdom had not prescribed the time frame within which the compliance thereof is to be made. Although the Court orders are meant to be implemented whether the time frame for compliance is prescribed or not, still, in the facts and circumstances of this case, we are not persuaded, at this length of time, to prescribe a specific period within which the alleged direction for the removal of alleged encroachments is to be complied.
7. The Division Bench has further held thus:
“In view of the above, we are not inclined to grant the prayer made in the application for fixing a time limit for compliance of the order dated 16.11.2010, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and looking to the process being undertaken and which is required to be undertaken. However, in the interest of justice, it is considered appropriate and hence observed that in the proceedings adopted by the B.D.A against the alleged unauthorized occupants, if the petitioner- Society seeks to make its submissions, the concerned authority – B.D.A may consider the prayer of the petitioner-Society and take appropriate decision in the matter strictly in accordance with law”.
8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case as aforesaid, this Court is of the considered view that the interest of justice would be sub served in directing the BDA-respondent Nos.1 to 3 to take further action on the basis of the orders passed by respondent No.2 for removing encroachments over the site in question and take a decision, considering the representation dated 02.02.2017 submitted by the petitioner as per Annexure-S to the writ petition in an expedite manner subject to pending litigations, if any.
Respondent No.4 - Society shall also assist the respondent Nos.1 to 3 – BDA to remove the encroachments as alleged by the petitioner in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE PYR