IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.42553/2016 (BDA) BETWEEN:
Dr. RAMESH BELLAMKONDA S/O LATE B.R.BETTAIAH SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS HAVING ADDRESS AT:
KOUSTUBHA C/O B.SRINIVASA MURTHY NO.252, 3RD MAIN ROAD, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 086 ... PETITIONER [BY SRI VISHNU HEGDE, ADV.] AND:
1. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER, KUMARA PARK WEST, PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE-560001 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, WESTERN SUB-DIVISION, BDA COMPLEX, VIJAYANAGARA, BANGALORE-560 040 …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI NARENDRA GOWDA, ADV.] THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNE ORDER/ENDORSEMENT DATED 28.07.2016 PASSED BY R-2 i.e., ANNEXURE-L.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner has assailed the order/endorsement dated 28.07.2016 passed by respondent No.2 at Annexure – L to the writ petition, inter alia, seeking a direction to respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated 21.03.2016 made by the petitioner and direct respondent No.2 to conduct survey and fix the boundary mark in the property in question.
2. The petitioner is claiming to be the owner in possession of the property bearing Site No.33 in Nandini Dollars Scheme Extension at Nandini Layout, Bangalore, measuring East to West – 50 feet and North to South 87 + 80/2 feet. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the adjacent site owner, one Sri C.Ramu had started to interfere in the schedule property of the petitioner. The petitioner has approached the City Civil Court against him in O.S.No.1955/2014 and the said suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner. It is contented that even thereafter, the said Sri C.Ramu had interfered with the petitioner’s peaceful possession of the property in question. Therefore, the complaint was lodged by the petitioner on 04.03.2016. In the said circumstances, the petitioner has approached the respondent – Authorities requesting for conducting survey of the property in question and to fix the boundaries. The respondent – BDA by the impugned order/endorsement has directed the petitioner to seek remedy before the appropriate forum for the interference if any caused by third parties since the Possession Certificate was issued as far back as on 01.09.1989 to Sri K.Narayanan, vendor of the petitioner/original allottee after getting the correct dimension report. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is obligatory on the part of the respondent – Authorities to consider the representation of the petitioner to conduct the survey and fix the boundaries. On the contrary, the respondent – Authority has issued impugned order/endorsement which deserves to be set aside.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent – Authority submits that the petitioner having obtained the decree in O.S.No.1955/2014 is required to execute the same. Instead of that, has approached the respondent – Authority to conduct the survey and fix the boundaries to protect the petitioner from enjoying the property in question. The Statutory Authority is obligated to consider the requests in terms of the statutory provisions. The Statutory Authority cannot overreach its jurisdiction to resolve the dispute of the petitioner inasmuch as the interference caused by any third parties. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. I have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record.
6. It is trite law that the petitioner having the benefit of decree in O.S.No.1955/2014 against Sri C.Ramu is obligated to execute the said decree in accordance with law. The Statutory Authorities are not empowered to exercise the powers vested with the Executing Court. In the guise of submitting the representations, the petitioner cannot seek for the execution of the decree passed by the Civil Court through the Statutory Authority. On the Possession Certificate issued to the vendor of the petitioner/the original allottee on 01.09.1989, it is the responsibility of the allottee of the site to protect the said property. The petitioner cannot seek the protection from the Statutory Authority to protect his right, restraining any third party from interfering with the allotted site. The powers which are not vested with the parties cannot be extended to redress the grievance of the petitioner. Hence, the decision of the respondent – BDA declining to interfere with the request/representation made to resolve the dispute with third parties cannot be found fault with.
The writ petition is bereft of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE PMR