IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.17107/2018 (LB-RES) BETWEEN:
Sri. Shivarama Reddy, Late S/o. Papa Reddy, Aged 65 years, R/at. Gopasandra Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk-560 099, Bengaluru Urban District.
(Benefit of Senior Citizen not claimed) ... Petitioner (By Sri. B.Ramesh, Advocate) AND:
1. The State of Karnataka, Department of Revenue, M.S.Building, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Bengaluru-560 001.
Represented by its Secretary.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru-560 030.
3. The Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru Sub-Division, Revenue Bhavana, Bengaluru-560 001.
4. The Thasildar, Anekal Taluk, Anekal-562 106.
5. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayath-560 009, Bengaluru Rural District.
6. The Panchayath Development Officer, Muthahalli Gram Panchayath, Anekal Taluk-562 106, Bengaluru Urban District.
7. Additional Director of Land Records, Bengaluru Urban District, K.R.Circle, Bengaluru-560 001. ... Respondents (By Sri. M.A.Subramani, HCGP for R1 to R4 & R7; Sri. M.S.Prakash, Advocate for R6) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondents to consider the representations dated 27.09.2017 submitted by the petitioners vide Annexure-F1 to F6 and etc., This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The petitioner asserts to be the owner of property in Sy.No.2/2 measuring to an extent of 8 guntas situated at Gopasandra village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that a road has been formed in his property without his property having been acquired and compensation paid and without his permission. The petitioner had relied on the sketch at Annexure-G2 issued by the Survey Department which showed the road as running through Sy.No.2/2. During the course of the proceedings as per the order dated 07.02.2019, this Court had directed the Tahsildar as well as respondent No.6 to make clear their stand as regards the allegations of the petitioner.
3. Affidavit has been filed by the Tahlsildar, Anekal Taluk on 15.02.2019 and the stand taken by the Tahsildhar is that on the basis of a request for change of alignment of cart track in Sy.No.3 of Gopasandra village, the Deputy Commissioner as per order dated 25.04.2016 had permitted changing of alignment of the road and the road eventually formed lies on the extreme northern side of Sy.No.3, Gopasandra village. It is further asserted that no road has been formed in Sy.No.2/2 of Gopasandra village despite, the sketch at Annexure-G2 which was issued by Survey Department. The Incharge Panchayath Development Officer, Mutthanallur Gram Panchayath has also filed an affidavit stating that no road has been formed by respondent No.6-Gram Panchayath in the property belonging to the petitioner. The Tahsildar along with the affidavit has enclosed a sketch at Annexure-R2 which indicates the location of the said road and also indicates that Sy.No.2 falls to the Eastern side of Sy.No.3.
4. In light of the stand taken by the Tahsildhar as well as the Panchayath Department Officer that no road has been formed as such in property of the petitioner in Sy.No.2/2 and road has been formed in Sy.No.3, the petitioner states that his property may be demarcated and he may be permitted to put up a compound wall to safeguard his property.
5. In light of the contentions raised and stand taken by the Tahsildhar and the Panchayath Development Officer that no road has been formed by the respondents in the petitioners property, it would be appropriate in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case to direct respondent No.7 to conduct a survey and identify the property of the petitioner in Sy.No.2/2 upon necessary application being made by the petitioner with requisite documents in prescribed form.
6. Accordingly, survey to be conducted by respondent No.7 within a period of six weeks from the date of application being submitted by the petitioner with relevant documents. The identification of the property of the petitioner would address the grievance that is raised in the present petition.
Accordingly, petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE RB