IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.27833/2010 c/w WRIT PETITION No.36925/2017 (GM-RES)PIL IN WRIT PETITION No.27833/2010 BETWEEN:
THE BAGALAKUNTE GRAMA NAGARIKARA HITHARAKSHANA VEDIKE N. RAJANNA BUILDING 12TH CROSS, NAGASANDRA POST BANGALORE-73 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI. B.G. ANANTHA RAJU ... PETITIONER (BY SHRI. T. SHESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-1 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-1 3. THE TAHASILDAR BANGALORE NORTH TALUK K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-1 4. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE BANGALORE 5. SMT. PAPAMMA W/O LATE B.N.L. NARASIMAHAIAH AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS 6. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE B.N. JAYALAKSHMI NARASIMAHAIAH AGED 60 YEARS 7. SRI. B.N. LAKSHMINARASIMAHAIAH S/O LATE B.N. JAYALAKSHMI NARASIMAHAIAH AGED 34 YEARS 8. SRI. B.J. MANJUNATH S/O LATE N. JAYALAKSHMI NARASIMAHAIAH AGED 26 YEARS NOS.5 TO 8 ARE RESIDING AT NO.266, 6TH CROSS BAGALAKUNTE, BANGALORE-73 9. SMT. VIMALA W/O LATE B.N. NARASIMAHAIAH AGED 48 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.266, 6TH CROSS BAGALAKUNTE, BANGALORE-73 10. SRI. K.A.L. VENUGOPALA S/O LAKSHMANA CHETTIAR AGED 86 YEARS R/AT DASARAHALLI BANGALORE-57 (THE RESPONDENT NO.10 IS DELETED AS PER THE COURT ORDER) 11. SMT. SUJAYA D/O M.S. SIDDALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT NO 56, 19TH CROSS RAJAJINAGAR, I BLOCK BANGALORE-10 12. SMT. VIJAYA D/O KADARAPPA W/O L. NAGARAJ AGED 67 YEARS R/AT NO 4282, 1ST CROSS SUBRAMANYA NAGAR SREERAMAPURAM BANGALORE-21 13. SRI. M.D. RAMAKRISHNAIAH S/O DEVSETTY GOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT NO.MIG-2, 80’ ROAD KENGERI UPANAGARA BANGALORE-60 14. SRI. M.L. NAGARAJU S/O LATE H.B. LINGAIAH AGED 56 YEARS 1ST FLOOR, NO.241, 5TH CROSS KEMPEGOWDA NAGAR BANGALORE-19 15. SRI. B.R. RAMAMURTHY S/O B.V. RANGANATHA RAO AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT HOUSE PROPERTY NO.35 IN SY. NO.128 & 129 OF BAGALAKUNTE VILLAGE OPP:GANAPATHY KANNADA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, VINAYAKA NAGARA BANGALORE-560 073 16. SMT. M. SUNITA W/O C. RANGASWAMAIAH MAJOR R/AT HOUSE PROPERTY NO.7 IN SY. NO.128 & 129 OF BAGALAKUNTE VILLAGE OPP:GANAPATHY KANNADA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, VINAYAKA NAGARA BANGALORE-560 073 17. SRI. LINGARAJU S/O SRI. GANGAMALAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT HOUSE PROPERTY NO.3 IN SY. NO.128 & 129 OF BAGALAKUNTE VILLAGE OPP:GANAPATHY KANNADA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, VINAYAKA NAGARA BANGALORE-560 073 18. SMT. SHAKUNNTHALA W/O R.V. BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT HOUSE PROPERTY NO.43 IN SY. NO.128 & 129 OF BAGALAKUNTE VILLAGE OPP:GANAPATHY KANNADA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, VINAYAKA NAGARA BANGALORE-560 073 19. SMT. JAYAMMA W/O BYLAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT HOUSE PROPERTY NO.42 IN SY. NO.128 & 129 OF BAGALAKUNTE VILLAGE OPP:GANAPATHY KANNADA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, VINAYAKA NAGARA BANGALORE-560 073 20. SRI. MUNICHICKKAIAH S/O CHICKKAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT HOUSE PROPERTY NO.2/A IN SY. NO.128 & 129 OF BAGALAKUNTE VILLAGE OPP:GANAPATHY KANNADA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, VINAYAKA NAGARA BANGALORE-560 073 21. SRI. T. VENKATESH S/O A. CHICKKATHIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT HOUSE PROPERTY NO.67 IN SY. NO.128 & 129 OF BAGALAKUNTE VILLAGE OPP:GANAPATHY KANNADA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, VINAYAKA NAGARA BANGALORE-560 073 22. SMT. LAKSHMI VENKATESH W/O T.VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT HOUSE PROPERTY NO.67/A IN SY. NO.128 & 129 OF BAGALAKUNTE VILLAGE OPP:GANAPATHY KANNADA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, VINAYAKA NAGARA BANGALORE-560 073 23. SRI. K.V. VIRUPAKSHA S/O VEERABHADRA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT HOUSE PROPERTY NO.15/A IN SY. NO.128 & 129 OF BAGALAKUNTE VILLAGE OPP:GANAPATHY KANNADA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, VINAYAKA NAGARA BANGALORE-560 073 24. SRI. D.K. SIDDARAMAIAH S/O D.V. KEMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT HOUSE PROPERTY NO.18 IN SY. NO.128 & 129 OF BAGALAKUNTE VILLAGE OPP:GANAPATHY KANNADA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, VINAYAKA NAGARA BANGALORE-560 073 25. SRI. GOVINDARAJU S/O VENKATARAMANA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT HOUSE PROPERTY NO.52 IN SY. NO.128 & 129 OF BAGALAKUNTE VILLAGE OPP:GANAPATHY KANNADA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, VINAYAKA NAGARA BANGALORE-560 073 26. SMT. DEVARAJAMMA W/O DEVANNA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT HOUSE PROPERTY NO.4 IN SY. NO.128 & 129 OF BAGALAKUNTE VILLAGE OPP:GANAPATHY KANNADA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, VINAYAKA NAGARA BANGALORE-560 073 27. SMT. HUCHAMMA W/O LATE THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT HOUSE PROPERTY NO.30 & 31 IN SY. NO.128 & 129 OF BAGALAKUNTE VILLAGE OPP:GANAPATHY KANNADA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, VINAYAKA NAGARA BANGALORE-560 073 28. SMT. MANGALA W/O M. RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT HOUSE PROPERTY NO.50 IN SY. NO.128 & 129 OF BAGALAKUNTE VILLAGE OPP:GANAPATHY KANNADA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, VINAYAKA NAGARA BANGALORE-560 073 29. SRI. L. MUNIRAJU S/O LAKSHMI NARASIMAHAIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT HOUSE PROPERTY NO.47 IN SY. NO.128 & 129 OF BAGALAKUNTE VILLAGE OPP:GANAPATHY KANNADA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, VINAYAKA NAGARA BANGALORE-560 073 30. SMT. V.T. PREMA W/O R. RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT HOUSE PROPERTY NO.13 IN SY. NO.128 & 129 OF BAGALAKUNTE VILLAGE OPP:GANAPATHY KANNADA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, VINAYAKA NAGARA BANGALORE-560 073 31. SMT. S.B. SUJATHA W/O BYRANNA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT HOUSE PROPERTY NO.33 IN SY. NO.128 & 129 OF BAGALAKUNTE VILLAGE OPP:GANAPATHY KANNADA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, VINAYAKA NAGARA BANGALORE-560 073 32. SRI. A.S. JANARDHANA RAO S/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT HOUSE PROPERTY NO.63 IN SY. NO.128 & 129 OF BAGALAKUNTE VILLAGE OPP:GANAPATHY KANNADA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, VINAYAKA NAGARA BANGALORE-560 073 33. SRI. V. KRISHNAPPA S/O VEERABHADRAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT HOUSE PROPERTY NO.44 & 1/A IN SY. NO.128 & 129 OF BAGALAKUNTE VILLAGE OPP:GANAPATHY KANNADA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, VINAYAKA NAGARA BANGALORE-560 073 34. SMT. SIDAGANGAMMA W/O K.N. LINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT HOUSE PROPERTY NO.22 IN SY. NO.128 & 129 OF BAGALAKUNTE VILLAGE OPP:GANAPATHY KANNADA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, VINAYAKA NAGARA BANGALORE-560 073 35. SMT. JAYALAKSHMI W/O BYLANARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT HOUSE PROPERTY NO.15 IN SY. NO.128 & 129 OF BAGALAKUNTE VILLAGE OPP:GANAPATHY KANNADA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, VINAYAKA NAGARA BANGALORE-560 073 36. SRI. T. RAMAKRISHNA S/O THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT HOUSE PROPERTY NO.15/A IN SY. NO.128 & 129 OF BAGALAKUNTE VILLAGE OPP:GANAPATHY KANNADA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, VINAYAKA NAGARA BANGALORE-560 073 37. SRI.T.U. NARASIMAHAIAH S/O UGRAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT HOUSE PROPERTY NO.27 IN SY. NO.128 & 129 OF BAGALAKUNTE VILLAGE OPP:GANAPATHY KANNADA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, VINAYAKA NAGARA BANGALORE-560 073 38. SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O C. RAMU AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT HOUSE PROPERTY NO.54 IN SY. NO.128 & 129 OF BAGALAKUNTE VILLAGE OPP:GANAPATHY KANNADA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, VINAYAKA NAGARA BANGALORE-560 073 39. SMT. LAKKAMMA D/O HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT HOSUE PROPERTY NO.41 IN SY. NO.128 & 129 OF BAGALAKUNTE VILLAGE OPP:GANAPATHY KANNADA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, VINAYAKA NAGARA BANGALORE-560 073 40. SRI. B. SHIVANNA S/O BYRANARASIMAHAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT HOUSE PROPERTY NO.16 & 17 IN SY. NO.128 & 129 OF BAGALAKUNTE VILLAGE OPP:GANAPATHY KANNADA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, VINAYAKA NAGARA BANGALORE-560 073 41. SRI. N. GANESH KARANTH S/O KRISHNA KARANATH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT HOUSE PROPERTY NO.8 IN SY. NO.128 & 129 OF BAGALAKUNTE VILLAGE OPP:GANAPATHY KANNADA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, VINAYAKA NAGARA BANGALORE-560 073 42. SRI. LAKSHMANA SERIGUR S/O LATE CHANDU SERIGUR AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT HOUSE PROPERTY NO.9/A IN SY. NO.128 & 129 OF BAGALAKUNTE VILLAGE OPP:GANAPATHY KANNADA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, VINAYAKA NAGARA BANGALORE-560 073 43. SMT. VASANTHAMMA W/O BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT HOUSE PROPERTY NO.11 IN SY. NO.128 & 129 OF BAGALAKUNTE VILLAGE OPP:GANAPATHY KANNADA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, VINAYAKA NAGARA BANGALORE-560 073 44. SRI. B. BASAVARAJU S/O BASAVE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT HOUSE PROPERTY NO.10 IN SY. NO.128 & 129 OF BAGALAKUNTE VILLAGE OPP:GANAPATHY KANNADA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, VINAYAKA NAGARA BANGALORE-560 073 45. SMT. T.G. LAKSHMI BAI W/O B.K. MUKUNDA RAO AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT HOUSE PROPERTY NO.12 IN SY. NO.128 & 129 OF BAGALAKUNTE VILLAGE OPP:GANAPATHY KANNADA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, VINAYAKA NAGARA BANGALORE-560 073 46. SRI. RAMESH BABU S/O M.R. HARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT HOUSE PROPERTY NO.62/A IN SY. NO.128 & 129 OF BAGALAKUNTE VILLAGE OPP:GANAPATHY KANNADA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, VINAYAKA NAGARA BANGALORE-560 073 47. SRI. CHANDRASHEKARA SATANEHALLI S/O MALLIKARJUNA SATENAHALLI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT HOUSE PROPERTY NO.62/B IN SY. NO.128 & 129 OF BAGALAKUNTE VILLAGE OPP:GANAPATHY KANNADA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, VINAYAKA NAGARA BANGALORE-560 073 48. SRI. K.N. BALASUBRAMNYA S/O NARAYANAN AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT HOUSE PROPERTY NO.63 IN SY. NO.128 & 129 OF BAGALAKUNTE VILLAGE OPP:GANAPATHY KANNADA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, VINAYAKA NAGARA BANGALORE-560 073 49. SRI. NARASIMHA MURTHY. M S/O MUDALAIAH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT HOUSE PROPERTY NO.38 IN SY. NO.128 & 129 OF BAGALAKUNTE VILLAGE OPP:GANAPATHY KANNADA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, VINAYAKA NAGARA BANGALORE-560 073 50. SMT. PADMA W/O HANUMANTHA RAJU AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT HOUSE PROPERTY NO.83 IN SY. NO.128 & 129 OF BAGALAKUNTE VILLAGE OPP:GANAPATHY KANNADA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, VINAYAKA NAGARA BANGALORE-560 073 51. SRI. NARAYANAPPA S/O LATE PUTTARANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT HOUSE PROPERTY NO.29 IN SY. NO.128 & 129 OF BAGALAKUNTE VILLAGE OPP:GANAPATHY KANNADA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, VINAYAKA NAGARA BANGALORE-560 073 52. SRI. RAMESH S/O RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT HOUSE PROPERTY NO.20 1ST MAIN, IN SY. NO. 128 OF BAGALAKUNTE VILLAGE OPP: GANAPATHY KANNADA-
HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL VINAYAKA NAGARA BANGALORE-560 0733 53. SRI. SRINIVAS S/O MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT HOUSE PROPERTY NO.34/A 1ST MAIN, IN SY. NO. 128 OF BAGALAKUNTE VILLAGE OPP: GANAPATHY KANNADA- HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL VINAYAKA NAGARA BANGALORE-560 073 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI. D.R. RAJASHEKHARAPPA, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R1-R3;
SHRI. I.G.GACHCHINMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-4; SHRI. K. SUMAN, ADVOCATE FOR R-12;
SHRI. REUBEN JACOB, ADVOCATE FOR R-13;
SHRI. B.C.SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R-14; SHRI. G.KRISHNAMURTHY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI. L.M. RAMAIAH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R15-19, 21-28, 30, 31, 33-37, 41-44, 46, 47 & 49-53;
SHRI. VIJAYASHEKARA GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-20, 29, 32, 38-40, 45, 48;
R-5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 SERVED BUT-UNREPRESENTED; R-10 DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED:29.11.2010) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R1, 2, 3 AND 4 TO EVICT THE R5 TO 14 FORM THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND TO RESTORE THE TANK FOR THE USE OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC WITH A FURTHER DIRECTION TO REJUVINATE THE TANK AT THE EARLIEST.
IN WRIT PETITION No.36925/2017 BETWEEN:
1. SRI. V.D. SHIVANNA S/O LATE DODDANARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO.18, 6TH CROSS VIJAYALAKSHMI LAYOUT BAGALAGUNTE BANGALORE–560 073 2. SRI JAGADEESH G.M S/O LATE MALLEGOWDA HINDU, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT NO.213/1, 5TH CROSS VIJAYALAKSHMI LAYOUT BAGALAGUNTE BANGALORE–560 073 3. SRI. S.N. VEERABHADRAIAH S/O LATE SANNANAGAPPA HINDU, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT NO.232, 4TH CROSS VIJAYALAKSHMI LAYOUT BAGALAGUNTE BANGALORE–560 073 4. SRI. SHIVANNA S/O PUTTEGOWDA HINDU, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT NO 118/1, 4TH CROSS VIJAYALAKSHMI LAYOUT BAGALAGUNTE BANGALORE–560 073 5. SRI. S.N. ERANNA S/O LATE SANNANAGAPPA HINDU, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT NO.236, BEHIND MARAMMA TEMPLE VIJAYALAKSHMI LAYOUT BAGALAGUNTE BANGALORE–560 073 6. SRI. C. RAMESH S/O CHANNAIAH HINDU, AGED ABOUTR 49 YEARS R/AT NO.122, 1ST MAIN, 14TH CROSS VIJAYALAKSHMI LAYOUT BAGALAGUNTE BANGALORE–560 073 7. SRI. N.V. VEERABHADRAIAH S/O VENKATASWAMY S HINDU, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT NO 896, MUNESHWARANAGARA 1ST B CROSS, BAGALAGUNTE BANGALORE-560 073 8. SRI. B.M.JAGADISH S/O MUNIRAJ HINDU, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT NO.598, 17TH CROSS BAGALAGUNTE MAIN ROAD BANGALORE-560 073 …PETITIONERS (BY SHRI. MURTHY K, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE SECRETARY GOVT. OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001 2. THE TECHNICAL MANAGER (WEST) KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT NO.280, 59TH CROSS, 17TH ‘C’ MAIN ROAD 3RD ‘Y’ BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE-560 010 3. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R.CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 002 4. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE DASARAHALLI ZONE, BAGALAGUNTE BENGALURU-560 073 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINNER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE DASARAHALLI DIVISION, BAGALAGUNTE BENGALURU-560 073 6. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BAGALAGUNTE WARD NO.14 DASARAHALLI ZONE, BAGALGUNTE BENGALURU-560 073 7. THE CHIEF CONSERVATION OF FOREST ARANYA BHAVANA, MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE-560 012 8. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DIVISION K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001 9. THE TAHASHILDAR BANGALORE NORTH TALUK KANDAYA BHAVANA K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI. D.R. RAJASHEKARAPPA, SPECIAL GOVERNEMNT ADVOCATE FOR R-1 AND R7-R9;
SHRI. V. SREENIDHI, ADVOCATE FOR R3-R6; R-2 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 TO 6 TO STOP THE CONSTRUCTION OF DWCC CENTRE AND NOT TO GO WITH FURTHER ANY TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES IN THE GOVERNMENT TANK IN SY NO.83 OF BAGALAGUNTE VILLAGE, BENGALURU CITY AND ETC., THESE WRIT PETITIONS, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 07.03.2019, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR J, PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER These two writ petitions have been filed as public interest petitions to stop construction activity in Sy. No.83 of Bagalakunte village, Bengaluru and to direct the State Government to rejuvenate and preserve it as a ‘Tank’ for the use of general public.
2. W.P. No.27833/2010 is filed by ‘The Bagalakunte Grama Nagarikara Hitharakshana Vedike’, an Association registered under the Societies Registration Act.
W.P. No.36925/2017 is filed by citizen residing in and around Bagalakunte Village.
3. We have heard Shri.T.Sheshagiri Rao, Shri.Suman, Shri. D.R. Rajashekarappa, Shri. B.C. Seetharama Rao, Shri.I.G.Gachchinamath and Shri.G.Krishnamurthy, learned advocates for respective parties.
4. In substance, petitioner’s case in W.P.No.27833/2010 is that Sy. No.83 of Bagalakunte village measuring 11 acres 4 guntas is a Government Tank within the local limits of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (‘BBMP’ for short). One Shri.B.N.Lakshmi Narasimhaiah and two other inamdars had filed applications before the Deputy Commissioner (Inams Abolition), for re- grant of land in their favour. By three separate orders all dated 20.08.1973, the Deputy Commissioner re-granted the said land in favour of said three persons. The village map and the revenue entries for the years 1968-69 to 1971-72 show that the land in question is a Tank belonging to the Government. However, the Deputy Commissioner has mechanically passed the re-grant orders without proper application of mind.
5. After the re-grant, respondent No.5, Papamma sold 3 acres of land on 02.12.1973 in favour of respondent No.10. He in turn sold it in favour of respondent No.11. Sixth respondent’s husband sold 2 acres 23 guntas of land on 02.12.1973 in favour of respondent No.10 who in turn sold the same in favour of respondent No.12. Out of 2 acres 23 guntas respondent No.12 sold 1 acre 20 guntas in favour of respondent No.13. Ninth respondent’s husband has sold 2 acres 23 guntas of land in favour of respondent No.10. In turn respondent No.10 has sold 1 acre 3 guntas out of 2 acres 23 guntas in favour of respondent No.11 and remaining extent in favour of respondent No.12. Respondent No.12 has sold 20 guntas out of 1 acre 20 guntas in favour of respondent No.14.
6. In substance, respondents No.11 to 14 were forming a residential layout in an area measuring 8 acres 6 guntas out of 11 acres 4 guntas.
7. Petitioner has submitted representations to the Deputy Commissioner and the Tahsildar, Bengaluru to safeguard the village Tank, but no action has been taken by them.
8. Petitioners in W.P. No.36925/2017 have averred that BBMP has constructed a Dry Waste Collection Centre, an illegal road and a drain. They have sought for a direction to stop and remove those constructions.
9. Shri.Sheshagiri Rao, learned Advocate for the Association made following submissions:
Sy. No.83 is a Tank. Therefore, it could not have been re-granted to Inamdars under Inams Abolition Act;
Article 48A of the Constitution of India enjoins a duty upon the State Government to protect and improve environment.
In support of his contentions he placed reliance on following authorities:
(1) Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi Vs. State of A.P. and others [(2006)3 SCC 549] (2) National Institute of Medical Science University Rajasthan & Another Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. [2017 SCC online SC 1297] 10. Shri. G.Krishnamurthy, learned Senior Advocate submitted that the Tank had lost its character from 1903.
In reply to the contention with regard to Article 48A of Constitution of India, he argued that the said Article has been inserted in the year 1977 long after the re-grant. He submitted that the instant petition is filed in the year 2010 whereas, the land was re-granted in the year 1973. Except a piece of land handed over to the Forest Department, entire area has been developed into a residential colony in Ward No.7 of Dasarahalli City Municipality. He also argued that petitioner has no locus- standi to maintain this petition filed with inordinate delay. He placed reliance on the following authorities:
(1) State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs. D.R.Laxmi and Ors. [(1996)6 SCC 445] (2) R & M Trust Vs. Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group and others [(2005)3 SCC 91] (3) Jt.Collector Ranga Reddy Vs. D.Narsing Rao [(2015)3 SCC 695] 11. Shri. Rajashekarappa, Special Counsel for the State Government submitted that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner re-granting the land in the year 1973 has attained finality. Out of the total land, 2 acres 38 guntas has been handed over to the Forest Department. Extensive construction has come up in the remaining area. State Government have recommended to divert the land under Section 68(5) of the Karnataka land Revenue Act.
12. Shri.Suman, learned advocate for respondent No.12 submitted that the said respondent has been deleted from the proceedings. Therefore, no order can be passed against her. With regard to petitioner’s conduct and locus- standi, he submitted that petitioner has described itself as an Association. But petitioner has not filed any document such as Bye-laws of the Society, List of members, Resolution passed in the meeting of the Members deciding to file this writ petition. He vehemently contended that the Association has no locus-standi to maintain this writ petition. He argued that in the Statement of objections filed on behalf of respondent No.12, a specific contention has been taken in this behalf which has remained un- rebutted. He also argued that this writ petition has been filed with inordinate delay. In support of his contentions he relied upon following authorities:
(1) Bharatiya Homoeopathy College, Bharatpur Vs. Students’ Coduncil of Homoeopathy Medical College, Jaipur and others [(1998)2 SCC 449] (2) R and M Trust Vs. Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group and Others [(2005)3 SCC 91] 13. Shri. B.C. Seetharama Rao, learned Advocate for respondent No.14 urged that admittedly the Tank was in the Inam village. After abolition of Inams, Inamdar becomes the owner of lands, trees and Tanks held by him before abolition of Inams. Though the land is described as a ‘Tank’ right from 1903, it had remained as an abandoned Tank and at no point of time there was water in the said Tank. He also argued on the aspect of delay, locus-standi and Deputy Commissioner’s report to de-notify the Tank.
14. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the records.
15. The land in question was subject matter of cases No.2, 5 & 6/1959-60. By three separate orders, all dated August 20, 1973, the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition, Bangalore has ordered registration of occupancy rights over 3 acres of land in Sy. No.83 in favour of Papamma, 2 acres 23 guntas in favour of N.Jayalakshmi Narasimhaiah and 2 acres 23 guntas in favour of B.N.Lakshmi Narasimhaiah. The Special Deputy Commissioner has recorded in his order, in case No. 5 and 6/1959-60, that as per Tahsildars’ report, the Tank had lost its character and claimants had proved that the land in question was brought under cultivation.
16. The land has changed many hands. According to the Special Counsel for the State, except an area of 2 acres and 38 guntas which has been handed over to the Forest Department, the remaining area is completely built up.
17. It is the specific case of the private respondents that the Tank had lost its character as back as in the year 1903. Admittedly, these two writ petitions have been filed in the year 2010 and 2017 respectively.
18. We have considered following authorities relied upon by the learned advocate for the petitioner:
(1) Hinch Lal Tiwari Vs. Kamala Devi and others [(2001)6 SCC 496] (2) Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi Vs. State of A.P. and others [(2006)3 SCC 549] (3) Holicow Pictures (Private) Limited Vs. Prem Chandra Mishra and others[(2007)14 SCC 281] (4) National Institute of Medical Science University Rajasthan & Another Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others. [2017 SCC Online 1297] 19. In Hinch Lal Tiwari’s case, the question was whether the land allotted by the Sub-Divisional Officer to the beneficiaries formed a part of the pond. After considering Section 4 of UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, it was held that in terms of Section 4, ‘ponds’, ‘private ferries’ etc. would vest in Gaon Sabha or any other Local Authority.
20. In Intellectuals Forum’s case, it is held that Article 48A of the Constitution mandates that State shall endeavour to protect and improve environment to safeguard forests and wildlife of the Country. The environmental protection and conservation of natural resources has been given a status of Fundamental Right under Article 21 of the Constitution by the Courts.
21. In Holicow Pictures case, it is held that when Court comes to the conclusion that writ petition is not in public interest, yet if it finds that there is scope for dealing with the matter in greater public interest, it can be done by keeping the writ petitioner out of picture by appointing an amicus curiae. It is also held that the above option is to be exercised only in exceptional cases and not in a routine manner.
22. In NIMSUR case, the Institute had requested the Chief Minister of the State for allotment of certain land. There was no response from the Chief Minister’s office. A public interest litigation was filed stating that illegal construction was made in the property bearing Khasra No.526 in Jugalpur, Tehsil Amer in Jaipur District. The Hon’ble Supreme Court ordered demolition of the unauthorized construction by holding thus:
“34. Assuming there was no response from the Chief Minister to that or any other representation made by NIMS to any authority including the Jaipur Development Authority for allotment of Khasra No.526, NIMS had no right to assume that its request for allotment had been accepted (or not rejected) by the Chief Minister or the Jaipur Development Authority and on that assumption to make constructions on the land without any permission or sanction.”
23. It is relevant to note that NIMS had encroached upon property belonging to the Government and put up illegal construction.
24. In the case on hand, the Deputy Commissioner has directed registration of occupancy rights in favour of Inamdars by three separate orders and they have attained finality. The present occupants are subsequent purchasers and their title is traceable to the Deputy Commissioner’s order.
25. This petition is mainly opposed on three grounds.
Firstly, that the Tank had lost its character in the year 1903. Secondly, that the present occupants are bonafide purchasers. Thirdly, that any interference by this Court after a lapse of 37 years after re-grant will have disastrous effect on the present occupants.
26. In D.R. Laxmi’s case, it is held that Courts will invalidate an order only if the right remedy is sought by the right person in the right proceedings and circumstances. The order may be hypothetically a nullity, but the Court may refuse to quash it because of plaintiff’s lack of standing, because he does not deserve a discretionary remedy, because he has waived his rights or for some other reason.
27. In Pankaj Bhargava and another Vs. Mohinder Nath and another1 it is held that doctrine of collateral challenge will not apply to a decision which is valid ex- hypothesi and which has some presumptive existence, validity and effect in law. Such a decision can be 1 (1991)1 SCC 556 invalidated by the right person in right proceedings brought at the right time.
28. In R & M Trust’s case, it is held that Public Interest Litigation is a weapon which is to be used with great care and circumspection and judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest, an ugly private malice, vested interest is not lurking. Delay is an important factor while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and that third party interest created on account of delay cannot be disturbed.
29. In Jt. Collector Ranga Reddy’s case, delayed exercise of even revisional jurisdiction by the Government has been frowned upon holding that if actions or transactions were to remain forever open to challenge, it will mean avoidable and endless uncertainty in human affairs, which is not the policy of law.
30. In Bhartiya Homeopathi College’s case, it is held that Organizations, without disclosing any material regarding their nature, functions and funding should not be allowed lightly to undertake litigation in the name of public interest which can cause a lot of damage.
31. The material on record does not disclose the purpose and nature of function of petitioner –Association.
32. It is recorded in Deputy Commissioner’s order that Inamdars had proved that Tank had lost its character and it was brought under cultivation from long time. Reckoned from the date of Deputy Commissioner’s order, 37 years had elapsed as on the date of filing of the writ petition in the year 2010. As on date, 46 years have elapsed from the date of re-grant.
33. Thus, in our considered view, a careful reading of the orders of re-grant and the submissions of the Special Counsel for the State Government as also the private respondents, leads to an irresistible inference that the land in question has lost its identity as Tank and petitioner has brought this challenge after a lapse of 37 years. As noticed above, as on date nearly half a century has elapsed from the date of the re-grant. Hence, we are of the view that the settled rights and possessions of the owners of residential colony cannot be unsettled by entertaining these writ petitions. Resultantly, these writ petitions fail and they are accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE SPS