1/4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI W.P.No.53272/2017 (LB-RES) BETWEEN SRI. C.D. SANJAY RAJ S/O DEVRAJ C.H.
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT. CAVALCAD APARTMENT No.4, BENSON CROSS ROAD BENSON TOWN, BENGALURU-560046. (BY SRI CHETHAN A.C. ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE, VIDHAN SOUDHA ...PETITIONER AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU-560001.
3. THE TAHSILDAR ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL-562106.
4. BIDARAGUPPE GRAMA PANCHAYAT REP. BY ITS SECRETARY ATTIBELE HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK-562106.
...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.K. VASANTH, AGA FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NOT TO ENCROACH ON THE PETITIONERS LAND MEASURING 35 GUNTAS IN SY No.5 OF INDLABELE VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT WITHOUT FOLLOWING DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Mr. Chethan A.C. Adv. for Petitioner. Mr. A.K. Vasanth, AGA for R1 to R3.
This petition has been filed with the following prayers:
“a) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents not to encroach on the petitioner’s land measuring 35 guntas in Sy.No.5 of Indlabele village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District without following the process of law;
b) Pass such other orders or directions deemed fit and proper in the interests of justice and equity.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the garb of widening of the public road under the orders of the Respondent No.2-Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru, Respondent No.3- Tahsildhar of Anekal Taluk and the Respondent No.4-
Bidaraguppe Grama Panchayat are trying to demolish the Arch constructed by the petitioner for its Residential Layout developed at the said site.
3. Upon Court query, the learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to produce any record showing the approval of the construction of the said Arch outside the residential Layout by it and whether the said Arch is on their own land or public land is therefore not clear. Such questions of fact cannot be determined in the writ jurisdiction and therefore the alleged threat by the said Respondents-2, 3 and 4 to demolish the same for widening of the public road cannot be examined in this writ petition.
4. Though the writ petitioner has given Representation in this regard to Respondent No.3- Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk, vide Annexure-L (Relinquishment Deed) dated 12.06.2012, there appears to have not resulted any order from the side of the Tahsildar. Therefore, all these questions of fact remains open to be adjudicated either by the public Authorities like Respondents-2, 3 and 4 and the matter deserves to be decided by the Civil Court having jurisdiction over the said site in question.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to establish his claim in a properly instituted civil suit with setting up its title and exact boundaries and seek the appropriate relief against the respondents therein.
No costs.
Copy of this order may be supplied to the other side.
Sd/- JUDGE TL Sl.No.29