IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.H.G.RAMESH ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION NOs.29134-29135/2017 (GM-KLA) BETWEEN:
1. SHRI MARUTHI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA 2. SHRI NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA BOTH ARE R/AT NO.498 BHUVANESHWARI NAGARA T.DASARAHALLI BENGALURU – 560 057 ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI V.VISHWANATH SETTY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE REGISTRAR LOKAYUKTA M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001 2. THE COMMISSIONER BBMP, HUDSON CIRCLE BANGALORE – 560 002 3. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER BBMP, DASARAHALLI ZONE BAGALAKUNTE, BENGALURU – 560 073 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BBMP, BAGALAKUNTE BANGALORE – 560 073 5. THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE – 560 009 6. THE TALUKA SURVEYOR BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE – 560 009 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V.S.ARBATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI KEMPANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4; R5 & R6 SERVED) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LOKAYUKTHA IN LOK/BCD/468/2011 DATED 30.10.2013 WHICH IS APPROVED ON 5.11.2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-C.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Ag.CJ (Oral):
1. Heard. The apprehension of the petitioners is that the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike represented by respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 is likely to interfere with the petitioners’ possession of the suit schedule property in the suit in O.S.No.7948/2003 in the guise of implementing the order dated 30.10.2013 passed in COMPT/LOK/BCD/468/2011 which is approved by Lokayukta on 05.11.2013; the suit came to be decreed on 06.07.2011 and operative portion of the order therein reads as follows:
“In the result, in view of my observations made above and for the reasons stated therein, suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant is decreed partly. Consequently, permanent injunction is issued against Defendant Corporation restraining the defendant, its henchmen, representatives, or their agents, servants or anybody acting on their behalf from meddling or interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiffs. However, the Defendant corporation is directed not to demolish the existing structure or the house of plaintiff No.2 in a portion of suit schedule property except in accordance with law.
The suit in respect of mandatory injunction is hereby dismissed.
Having regard to the circumstances of the case, both parties are directed to bear their own costs. Draw decree accordingly.”
2. The suit schedule property described in the decree reads as follows:
“Schedule:
All that piece and parcel of the property approximately to the extent of 10 guntas in survey No.49/1 of Dasarahalli village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore and bounded as follows:
East by- private property West by- storm water drainage North by- Gundutopu property South by- Remaining property of the plaintiffs.”
3. Sri Kempanna, learned Counsel representing respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 submits that the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike will not interfere with the aforesaid suit schedule property except in accordance with law. His submission is placed on record.
4. In view of the above submission, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that no further order is necessary in these writ petitions. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.
5. At the request of learned Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4, it is clarified that the submission made by him is not in respect of Survey No.50 of Dasarahalli Village, Yeshwanthapur Hobli, Bangalore but only in respect of the suit schedule property described above.
Petitions disposed of.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE KSR