1/4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI WRIT PETITION No.19437 OF 2016 (LB-BMP) Between:
Smt.M.Chandrakala W/o Kodanda Rama Reddy Aged 45 years R/at No.251, in front of PCMIL Begur Road, Bommanahalli Bengaluru 560068. …Petitioner (By: Mr.Mallareddy B.V., Advocate) And:
1. State of Karnataka Represented by Principal Secretary Urban Development Department 4th Floor, Vikasa Soudha Ambedkar Veedhi Bangalore 560 001.
2. The Commissioner Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike N.R.Square, Bangalore – 560 002.
3. Joint Director of Town Planning Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike N.R.Square, Bangalore 560 002.
4. The Assistant Executive Engineer BBMP, Whitefield Sub-Division Mahadevapura Zone, ITPL Main Road Mahadevapura Bengaluru 560066. …Respondents (By:Mr.A.K.Vasanth, A.G.A. for R1 Mr.S.N.Prashanth Chandra, Advocate for R2 to R4) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for the records and quash the notice dated 26.3.2016 issued by the R4 vide Annexure-H and etc.
This W.P. coming on for hearing this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Mr.Mallareddy B.V., Advocate for Petitioner. Mr.A.K.Vasanth, A.G.A. for Respondent No.1. Mr.S.N.Prashanth Chandra, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 4.
This Writ Petition has been filed on 4.4.2016 with the following prayers:-
“(i) quashing the notice dated 26-03-2016 issued by the Respondent No.4 vide No.§È.¨ÉA.ªÀÄ.¥Á/¸À.PÁ.C/ªÉå.G«/282/44/15-16 (Annexure-H).
(ii) grant costs of the proceedings (iii)grant such other relief or reliefs as may be deemed in the interest of justice, equity and law.”
2. Under the interim directions of this Court, the State Government has produced the Survey Report dated 1.7.2016, which has been placed on record.
3. It is the case of the respondent – BBMP/State that the petitioner has encroached a public land to the extent of 4 mtrs.
4. On the contrary, Mr.Mallareddy.B.V., the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has not encroached any portion of the public land and on the contrary, a portion of the land marked in red of about 53.15 Sq.ft. of her property was used for the formation of a public road.
5. Looking into the nature of controversy involved in the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked by the petitioner in the matter and the said dispute about the actual extent of encroachment either by the petitioner or of the property of the petitioner deserves to be resolved only by way of a civil suit in the competent Civil Court. The parties are therefore relegated back to seek their remedies in the competent Civil Court by way of civil suit.
6. If a civil suit is filed before the trial Court within a period of one month from today, then for a period of four weeks from today, the status quo as it exists today shall be maintained by the parties. However, the said interim order will not be extended beyond the period of four weeks from today and further status of the land will abide by the further orders of the trial Court, if any.
With these directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
VGR Sd/-
JUDGE