IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 37654 OF 2017 (BDA) BETWEEN:
C BASAVARAJA NO.478 1ST FLOOR 11TH CROSS, UPPARA PALACE ARCADE, SADAHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE-80 … PETITIONER (BY SRI. MUDDARANGAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK, BANGALORE 20 2. SECRETRY FOREST ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-01 3. DEPUTY COMMISSONER URBAN DISTRICT BANGALORE-01 4. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, KANDAYA BHAVAN BANGALORE-01 5. TAHSILDAR BANGALORE SOUTH, BANGALORE-01 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DILDAR SHIRALLI, HCGP FOR R2 TO 5; SRI. M B PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEX-A DATED 19.06.2017 ISSUED BY R-1 BDA AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER The petitioner who claims to be owner of the
Annexure-D is complaining that a portion of his land has been encroached upon by the respondent-BDA while forming/rejuvenating the Reservoir in question.
2. After service of notice, the respondents have entered appearance through their counsel who having filed the Statement of Objections contend that the Reservoir in question has been in existence since very long and that it’s areal extent has never been altered and therefore, the question of petitioner’s part of land being encroached for the Reservoir in question does not arise at all.
3. Whether there is encroachment of petitioner’s land or not, and, if there is any encroachment as alleged, whether the petitioner is entitled to removal of encroachment or in the alternative, any other relief involve disputed question of facts which is not desirable to be adjudicated upon in the writ jurisdiction. The petitioner has an alternate and equally efficacious remedy by way of an appropriately situated civil suit or by making a proper representation to the State Government. Petitioner has not offered any explanation as to why he cannot avail the alternative avenues.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail alternate remedy under law.
Costs made easy.
Sd/- JUDGE Bsv