Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

Bapuji Vidyarthi Nilaya vs Bangalore Metro Rail Corporations Ltd And Others

High Court Of Karnataka|27 April, 2017
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA WRIT PETITION No.4655/2017 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
BAPUJI VIDYARTHI NILAYA (R) NO. 143, MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 023 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, SRI L GOVINDARAJU S/O LATE LINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS (BY SRI LOURDU MARIYAPPA A, ADV.) ... PETITIONER AND:
1. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATIONS LTD., (A JOINT VENTURE OF GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AND GOVERNMENT OF INDIA) MBTC COMPLEX, III FLOOR, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 027 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATIONS LTD., MBTC, COMPLEX, III FLOOR, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 027.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K KRISHNA, ADV. FOR R1 & 2) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE RESPONDENTS, FOR COMPLY AS PER THE REPRESENTATION AT THE REPRESENTATION VIDE ANNEX-D, E AND F AS ON 28.7.2016, 3.11.2015 AND 17.7.2015 RESPECTIVELY, AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS AUTHORITIES TO DO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE COMPOUND WALL AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORK, AS ASSURED BY THEM TO THE PETITIONER'S INSTITUTION.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner is before this Court seeking issue of mandamus to the respondents to consider the representations at Annexures-D, E and F and direct the respondents to construct the compound wall which existed to enclose the School premises said to be run by the petitioners herein. Since the project undertaken by the respondents has been completed, the petitioners are requesting that the compound wall be constructed so as to enclose the property where the school is being run. Since the representations as submitted have not been considered by the respondents, the petitioners are before this Court.
2. The respondents have filed their objection statement. The fact of the land being utilized and the compound wall which existed earlier being removed at the point of the project being implemented and the requirement of the respondents to replace the compound wall is not disputed.
3. The respondents however contended that they have not been permitted to put up the compound wall by the Traffic Police as according to them it would be a hindrance for the traffic flow. The letter as addressed by the respondents to the Addl. Commissioner of Police (Traffic), Traffic Control Centre, Bengaluru, dated 12.08.2016 is produced at Annexure-R2 to the petition. In that light, it is contended that if a clearance is provided by the Traffic Police, the wall would be constructed.
4. Having taken note of the contentions, all that is necessary to be ensured is that the Traffic Police would have to take into consideration these aspects of the matter and permit the respondents to restore the position as it existed prior to the respondents commencing the project of Metro Rail and utilizing the property for their project.
5. In that view, though the police authorities have not been arrayed as respondents to this petition, a direction is issued to the Addl. Commissioner of Police (Traffic), Traffic Control Centre, Bengaluru, to take note of the communication addressed by the respondents dated 12.08.2016, take into consideration the position as it existed earlier and permit the respondents to construct the compound wall in the same place where it existed prior to its demolition. If at all the Local Authority or the Police Department require any land for the purpose of widening the road, they would have to secure the same in accordance with law and not forcibly deny the benefit of the enjoyment of the land to the owner.
6. Reserving that liberty to the competent authority, for the present, it is directed that the Police Authority shall not cause any hindrance for the respondents to construct the wall as per the assurance that had been given to the owner of the property at the point when the project was taken up.
With the said direction, the petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE hrp/bms
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Bapuji Vidyarthi Nilaya vs Bangalore Metro Rail Corporations Ltd And Others

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
27 April, 2017
Judges
  • A S Bopanna