IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.49810 OF 2016 (GM-RES) Between:
Smt. Khursheed Jan, Wife of the Late Yaseen Shariff, Aged about 67 years, Residing at No.8, Royppa Road, Fraser Town, Bengaluru-560 005.
(Senior citizen benefit Not claimed) … Petitioner (By Sri.Janardhana.G, Adv.,) And:
The National Highways Authority of India, (Ministry of Road Transport & Highways), Sy.No.13, 14th Km, Nagasandra, Bengaluru-Tumkur Road (NH-4), Bengaluru-560 073.
Head Office at:
G-5 & 6, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi-110 075. … Respondent (By Sri.R.V.Naik, Adv.,) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct respondent not to put up any skywalk in front of the petitioner’s land in Sy.No.3/1C (Old No.3/3C- P1) situated at Venkatala Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North on the Bengaluru – Hyderabad Highway No.7.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri Janardhana G., learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri R.V.Naik, learned counsel for the respondent.
The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of the parties, it is heard finally.
2. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks a direction to the respondent not to put up any skywalk or over bridge in front of the petitioner’s land bearing survey No.3/1C (Old No.3/3C-P1), measuring 3 acres 26 guntas situated at Venkatala Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North at Bengaluru – Hyderabad Highway.
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is the owner of the land bearing survey No.3/1C, measuring 3 acres 26 guntas and in case the respondent is permitted to put up skywalk in front of the gate of the petitioner’s property, the petitioner would suffer irreparable injury and will have no right to access to his property. It is further submitted that the writ petition be disposed of with a direction to the respondent to offer an opportunity to hear the petitioner.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the skywalk is not being constructed in front of the gate of the petitioner as is evident from Annexure ‘J’ that is, photograph produced by the petitioner himself and therefore, affording an opportunity to the petitioner does not arise.
5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records.
6. The right to hold the property is a constitutional right. The petitioner in the instant case is only seeking a prayer to offer him an opportunity of hearing to point out as to what inconvenience he would be put to, in case, the skywalk is constructed in front of the house property of the petitioner. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to direct the competent authority of the respondent to give an opportunity of hearing the petitioner and to take decision with regard to the construction of the skywalk in accordance with law by a speaking order.
7. It is made clear that the aforesaid exercise be carried out within a period of four weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order passed today.
It is also made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE nvj