IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.3349/2019 (LB-RES) Between:
Smt. Asha U. Prabhu, W/o Sri K.Umesh Prabhu, Aged about 62 years, Residing at D. No.5-11-1072/1, Ravalnath Kripa, Haridas Lane, Mannagudda, Mangalore – 3. … Petitioner (By Sri Muralidhara R., Advocate) And:
1. The Commissioner, Mangalore City Corporation, Lalbagh, Mangalore – 3.
2. Sri Narahari Prabhu, S/o K. Kamalaksha Prabhu, Aged about 72 years.
3. Sri U.Nagesh Nayak, S/o U.Ananth Nayak, Aged about 62 years.
4. Sri K.Sadananda Prabhu, S/o K.Kamalaksha Prabhu, Aged about 58 years, All are residing at Eswara Sthana, Haridas Lane, Mannagudda, Mangalore – 3. … Respondents (By Sri K.V.Narasimhan, Advocate for R-1;
R-2 to R-4 deleted vide order dated 23.01.2019) ***** This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the R-1 to take action against the respondent Nos.2 to 4 for having obstructed the ingress and aggress of the petitioner as sought for in Annexures - H and L and etc.
This writ petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner has sought for consideration of her representations at Annexures-‘H’ and ‘L’ dated 15.01.2019 and 18.01.2019 respectively.
2. The petitioner submits that on the Southern side of the property of respondent Nos.2 to 4 as per the sale deed, there is a reference with respect to the road.
It is further submitted that there were civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 4 and that a suit in O.S.No.269/2009 had been filed by the petitioner seeking for the relief of declaration as regards the 13 feet road is stated to be necessary for access.
3. It is further stated though the said suit came to be dismissed, the same was taken up in an appeal in R.A.No.36/2014. The Court below has recorded a finding at para-27 of its judgment that the pathway referred to by the petitioner belongs to the Corporation.
4. The petitioner also draws the attention of the Court to the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner on an earlier occasion with respect to a connected dispute wherein there is a reference as regards the existence of the 13 feet road.
5. The petitioner contends that when she was in Bengaluru and had come to her daughter’s house, the respondent Nos.2 to 4 have blocked the said pathway by constructing a wall across the said path. The petitioner has produced additional documents alongwith a memo and points out to the photographs evidencing obstruction of the path.
6. The petitioner states that, as she is a senior citizen suffering from ailments, it is difficult in the event of any medical emergency to move out or even to obtain necessary medical help in time. The petitioner points out that the representations have been made to the respondent Authorities on 15.01.2019 and on 18.01.2019 and despite having pointed her difficulties and inconvenience caused to the petitioner, the respondent Authority has not taken any action.
7. The petitioner states that the respondent Mangalore City Corporation has power under Section 288-D of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Acts, 1976 to remove any obstruction that is made in any street and that the Commissioner is required to take action in light of the representations made in an expeditious manner.
8. Sri K.V.Narasimhan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Mangalore City Corporation states that they would look into the representations of the petitioner at Annexures – ‘H’ and ‘L’ and take a decision in accordance with law and as per the procedure prescribed, within a period of two weeks from today.
9. Taking note of the said submission, this petition is disposed of directing the respondent to consider the representations of the petitioner at Annexures-‘H’ and ‘L’ dated 15.01.2019 and 18.01.2019 respectively and dispose of the same in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing, if so sought for by the petitioner. The consideration of the said representations of the petitioner would be completed within a period not later than four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Sd/- JUDGE VGR ct:mhp