IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.18020/2019 (LB-BMP) Between:
Sri D.Bhakthavathsala, S/o. late R.Dharmanaidu, Aged 54 years, No.146/A, 5th Main, 4th Block, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru – 560 010.
…Petitioner (By Sri A. Mahesh Choudhary, Advocate) And:
Assistant Executive Engineer of SRM Ward, Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, N.R. Square, Bengaluru – 560 002. ...Respondent (By Smt. Sarita Kulkarni, Advocate) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct respondent to act on the letter dated 25.03.2015 to verify and report with regard to the illegal encroachment vide Annexure-G.
This Writ Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The petitioner claims to be the owner of the property adjoining a civic amenity site. The petitioner claims to have issued legal notice dated 27.05.2013 to the Commissioner, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) and the Assistant Executive Engineer, SRM Sub-Division, BBMP, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru to initiate action against those who are in possession of BBMP property illegally. Various other allegations are made regarding encroachment of civic amenity site. The petitioner has sought for issuance of an appropriate direction to the respondent-BBMP to take action in accordance with the letter at Annexure-G dated 25.03.2015.
2. It is pointed out that as per Annexure-G dated 25.03.2105, an explanation was called for from the concerned whether there has been any encroachment of the park.
3. Upon notice, the learned counsel appearing for respondent – BBMP has filed a memo and has produced a copy of the endorsement dated 06.11.2019 and states that the area belonging to the Temple is earmarked separately and the remaining area of civic amenity site has been enclosed by a compound wall. It is further submitted upon instructions that the Trust managing the Temple has sought for extension of lease.
4. The learned counsel appearing for respondent–BBMP further submits that necessary steps will be taken to protect the civic amenity site as well as other property vested with the respondent – BBMP. It is submitted that further action would be initiated if there is any illegality in the occupation of the property as depicted in the sketch at page-7 of the memo.
5. In light of the memo filed and submissions made, it can be said that the concerns of the petitioner are sufficiently addressed and hence no further orders are required. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE PN/VGR