IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No. 9550/2019 (LB-BMP) Between:
Ramareddy, S/o Late Gurumurthy Reddy, Aged 73 years, Resident of Samasandra Palya, HSR Layout Post, Bangalore – 560 102. (Senior Citizen not claimed) (By Sri. Manian K B S., Advocate) And:
... Petitioner 1. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike A Statutory Corporation under the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act 1976, Represented by its Commissioner, Hudson Circle, Bengaluru.
2. The Executive Engineer, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Bommanahalli Division Bangalore, Begur Road, Bomanahalli, Bangalore – 560 068.
(By Sri. Amit Deshpande, Advocate) ... Respondents This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned notices issued by the Respondent No.2 dated 06.10.2018, 22.11.2018 and 06.02.2019 vide Annexure-A, B and C to petition.
This writ petition is coming on for orders, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner claiming to be the owner of the property in Sy. No.28/4 of Haralakkunte Village, Begur Village, Bangalore South Taluk, has filed the petition seeking for an appropriate writ to quash the notices at Annexures A, B and C whereby the respondent-BBMP after observing that there has been an encroachment of a road by the petitioner, have called upon the petitioner to remove themselves from the encroached road portion failing which appropriate action will be taken by the respondent – BBMP.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that out of 02 Acres 30 Guntas in Sy. No. 28/4 of Haralakkunte Village, Begur Village, Bangalore South Taluk a portion of the property has been sold measuring 01 Acre 20 Guntas and the remaining portion of 01 Acre 10 Guntas is the subject matter of the present proceedings.
3. Petitioner states that there are neither revenue records nor any other record by the Town Planning Authority to indicate that there is any public road that runs through the petitioner’s property and hence contends that the notice is vague without any particulars, on the basis of which the respondent BBMP has observed that the petitioner has encroached the road.
4. Learned counsel for the BBMP upon instructions states that this is a matter that would be enquired into including the assertion of the petitioner that there is no public road running through his property.
5. In light of the necessity of the factual adjudication as to the existence of the public road running through the petitioner’s property, it would be appropriate that an enquiry as regards that aspect of the matter be conducted by the respondent – BBMP.
6. The petitioner states that he has already replied as regards the notices at Annexures A to C as per the reply dated 26.11.2018.
7. The respondent – BBMP to hold an enquiry after affording an opportunity of oral hearing to the petitioner and permitting the petitioner to place forth his case as regards the assertion of the BBMP regarding encroachment. Objections of others as may be deemed appropriate may be considered. Till such a finding is recorded, no action will be taken pursuant to the notices at Annexures A, B and C.
8. The proceedings by respondent-BBMP shall be conducted expeditiously within a period not later than twelve weeks. It is clarified that the enquiry to be made is to be confined within the limits of statutory power conferred for enquiring into the matter on hand.
Subject to the above observations, petition stands disposed off.
The petitioner to appear before the Commissioner – BBMP on 22.04.2019.
Sd/- JUDGE Bsv