IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO.33968/2019 (LB-BMP) Between:
Mr. B.N. Suresh, Aged about 65 Years, S/o B.N. Nanjappa, Residing at No.53/1, Krishna Rajendra Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore – 560 004.
(By Sri. C.V.Nagesh, Sr. Counsel for Sri.Raghavendra K., Advocate) And:
1. Government of Karnataka, Represented by its Chief Secretary, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Urban Development, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru – 560 001.
3. The Commissioner, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Hudson Circle, Bengaluru – 560 002.
…Petitioner 4. Assistant Revenue Officer, Basavangudi Sub-Division, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike-South, Basavangudi, Bengaluru – 560 004.
5. Mr. Vasant Kumar, Aged about 75 Years, S/o Late B. Raja Rao, Presently at Flat No.001, "Kumara Paradise" Apartments, B.P. Wadia Road, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru – 560 004.
6. Smt. R. Vatsala, Aged about 86 Years, D/o late B. Raja Rao, W/o V.K. Prahalad Rao, No.21, 1st Floor, Sterling Court Apartments, Kanakapura Road, Next to Federal Bank, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru – 560 004.
7. Sri. R. Chanchal Kumar, Aged about 71 Years, S/o Late B. Raja Rao, Residing At KRIPA, No.4., Market Road, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru – 560 004.
8. Sri. R. Dwarkanath, Aged about 65 Years, S/o late B. Raja Rao, Residing at No.1/02, TRUPTI, Police Station Road, Basavangudi, Bengaluru – 560 004.
... Respondents (By Smt.Prathima Honnapura, AGA for R1 and R2; Sri.Aravind M Neglur, Advocate for R3 and R4; R5 to R8 served and unrepresented) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to declare that the notice of Joint Khata for the premises bearing No.52 & 53 K.R.Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore:1/2, Police Road, Basavangudi, Bangalore, No.4, Market Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore, issued by the Assistant Revenue Office, Basavanagudi Sub – Division, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Bangalore vide dated 23.12.2017 is in utter violation of the Provisions of law and as such illegal, vide Annexure – H and etc., This Writ Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner, who is stated to be the owner of the property bearing Sy.Nos.52 and 53 has filed the present petition and has challenged the validity of the order at Annexure-H, whereby there has been an amalgamation of Khata as per request of respondent Nos.5 to 8 with respect to the property bearing Sy.Nos.52 and 53 in ward No.154 and as per the said order, an amalgamation of Khata has been effected with respect to an extent including the road which runs through the property, inspite of the earlier undertaking by respondent Nos.5 to 8 to leave an extent of property to the BBMP for the purpose of road.
2. The petitioner submits that in the title documents relating to the property, there was a Palupatti amongst the members of the family of respondent Nos.5 to 8 and in the said Palupatti, there was a reference to existence of road measuring 18 feet X 106 feet on the southern side of the main building running from East to West.
3. He further submits that on an earlier occasion, with respect to the order dated 16.09.1976 at Annexure-D relating to bifurcation and registration of Khata relating to the same property, respondent-BBMP had passed an order referring to an undertaking of the owners of the property i.e., respondent Nos.5 to 8 to leave out an extent of 24 feet X 106 feet to the respondent-BBMP free of cost for formation of road.
4. It is submitted that subsequently after lapse of time in the year 2017, an application for amalgamation of Khata came to be sought for by the family members of respondent Nos.5-8. The said application was objected to by the petitioner as per the objection at Annexure-F. Subsequently, an endorsement is stated to have been given by the respondent-BBMP at Annexure-G stating that an application for amalgamation of Khata would not be considered in light of the existence of road run through the property.
5. However, the petitioner submits that an order has been passed in Annexure-H, whereby amalgamation has been permitted and reference to an extent of road is only with respect to an extent of 1152 Sqft and if that may be so, access to the petitioner’s property would be cut off. It is further submitted that it is the responsibility and duty of respondent-BBMP to ensure that the undertaking is adhered to by respondent-BBMP in order to safe guard the interest of the petitioner’s property and passage.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent-BBMP submits that the passage referred to by the petitioner infact exists. It is also submitted that though there was an observation in W.P.No.57927/2018 that an extent of 24 feet X 106 feet that runs through the property bearing Survey Nos.53, 53/1 , ½ and 4 was a private access road and BBMP did not have any right over the properties, the said submission made by its counsel before the Division Bench is contrary to the records and applicable legal frame work.
7. It is further submitted that the passage referred to by the petitioner has been vested in the BBMP by operation of law and that the said passage is a public street. Taking note that the order at Annexure-H is passed on 23.12.2017 in light of the contentions as noticed above, if circumstances are so made out, the respondent-BBMP is at liberty to exercise Section 114A of the Karnataka Municipality Corporations Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short). In the present case, it would be appropriate taking note of all the contentions raised by the petitioner as well as stand taken by the respondent-BBMP in the statement of objections to remit the matter reserving liberty to the respondent-BBMP to take proceedings under Section 114A of the Act, if the circumstances are so made out and if permissible as per law.
8. All contentions of the parties are kept open.
Needless to state that respondent-BBMP to issue notice to all affected parties before passing the order under Section 114A of the Act, if such proceedings are initiated in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed off subject to above observations.
Sd/- JUDGE Mds/-