IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.50643/2016 (LB-BMP-PIL) BETWEEN SRI SHEKHAR N P S/O PURSHOTHAMMA N AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT NO.112/8, 3RD MAIN 5TH A CROSS, P P LAYOUT BSK III STAGE BENGALURU-560 085 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI RAMESHCHANDRA , ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHUT BENGALURU MAHA NAGARA PALIKE N.R.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BRUHUT BENGALURU MAHA NAGARA PALIKE I FLOOR, BASAVANAGUDI DIVISION WARD NO.154 CHANNAMMANAKERE ACCHUKATTU BENGALURU-560 085 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BBMP, I FLOOR BASAVANAGUDI SUB-DIVISION WARD NO.154 CHANNAMMANAKERE ACCHUKATTU BENGALURU-560 085 4. M/S SHRUSTI DEVELOPERS NO.13/13-1, 4TH MAIN, TATA SILK FARM BENGALURU-560 070 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS SRI P DESHPANDE AND SRI RAJKUMAR T R 5. SRI S RANGACHAR S/O LATE SRI S RAGHAVENDRACHAR AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT NO.66/1, 15TH A CROSS 6TH MAIN, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU-560 055 6. MRS. USHA R ACHAR W/O SRI S RANGACHAR AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT NO.66/1, 15TH A CROSS 6TH MAIN, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU-560 055 7. MRS. SANDHYA RAJASHEKAR W/O SRI G V RAJASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO.13360, HORSEPEN WOODS LANE, OAK HILL VIRGINIA 20171-USA REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER AND FATHER SRI M N KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT NO.100, 1ST FLOOR, 5TH MAIN GRUHALAKSHMI LAYOUT 2ND STAGE, BASAVESHWARANAGAR BENGALURU-560 079 8. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001 9. BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMAR PARK WEST, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD BENGALURU-560 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K N PUTTEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO 3; SRI CYRIL PRASAD PAIS, ADVOCATE FOR R-4 TO 7; SRI D NAGARAJ, AGA FOR R-8;
SRI M V CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R-9) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 AND ITS AUTHORITIES TO TAKE OVER THE CIVIL AMENITY SITE IN SURVEY NO.23 AND 25 OF MYLASANDRA VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK NOW IDENTIFIED AS SITE NO.89 AND 90 TO ITS CUSTODY BY DEMOLISHING THE CONSTRUCTION AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the first to third respondents, the learned counsel appearing for the fourth to seventh respondents, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the eighth respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the nineth respondent.
2. The nineth respondent –Bengaluru Development Authority has filed statement of objections in which, in paragraph 5, it is stated thus:
“5. It is submitted that Ganapathi Bhat had not developed the property in accordance with law. The entire extent of 6-acres 35-guntas of the property is unauthorisedly developed without adhering to the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act. It is submitted that the Bangalore Development Authority has powers under Sec. 32 (8) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act 1976. It is respectfully submitted that the respondents have not surrendered any civil amenity, park and open spaces to the Bangalore Development Authority. Hence it is unauthorised layout not as per zoning regulations”
3. The learned counsel appearing for the fourth to seventh respondents submits that the stand taken is totally incorrect and the said respondents have title.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the first to third respondents states that if possession of the concerned Civic Amenity sites is taken over by the nineth respondent and handed over to the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (for short ‘the BBMP’), the sites will be maintained by the BBMP. We accept the said statement.
5. As regards the contention of the fourth to seventh respondents, we must note that the nineth respondent is bound to take action in accordance with law and therefore, the fourth to seventh respondents can always raise appropriate contentions before the nineth respondent.
6. By accepting the statement made in paragraph 5 of the objections filed by the nineth respondent, we dispose of this petition by directing the nineth respondent to take action in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. The question which statutory power is to be exercised is left to the decision of the nineth respondent.
The pending interlocutory application does not survive and is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE bkv