1990 Supreme(Kar) 423
Karnataka High Court
Mir Iqbal Hussain - Appellant
Versus
Bangalore Development Authority - Respondent
Decided On : 08-22-90
W.P. : 8121 of 1988
C.B.SRINIVASAN, V.H.RON
Unilateral and arbitrary actions lacking authority of law are not justified and can be challenged in court.
Headnote:
Interference - Storm Water Drain - Article 300a - [Article 300a] - [Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, owners of a residential site, claimed that the respondent, B. D. A., had interfered with their property by constructing a storm water drain without acquiring the site, rendering it useless for construction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent's action was unilateral and arbitrary, lacking authority of law, and directed the closure of the storm water drain and restoration of the site to its original condition or allocation of an alternative site to the petitioners.
Issues: The court considered whether the interference by constructing a storm water drain was justified and whether the petitioners were entitled to the reliefs sought.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondent's action was unwarranted as it did not secure consent from the petitioners and circumvented the law, thus lacking authority of law.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the respondent was directed to close down the storm water drain and restore the site to its original condition or provide an alternative site to the petitioners within ninety days.
( 1 ) THE 1st petitioner is the owner ofresidential site bearing No. 63 in Jaladar-shini Coloxny having purchased the samefrom Bharat Electronics Employeescooperative House Building Society Limitedunder a sale deed vide Annexure-A. Thepetitioner was put in possession on11-10-1974 by Possession Certificate videannexure-B and thereafter he has been incontinuous possession and enjoyment ofthe site. A copy of the lay-out planrelating to the vast extent of land in whichsites were formed by the aforesaid Societyis Annexure C. Petitioners-2 and 3 enteredinto an agreement on 3-2-1988 with the1st petitioner for purchase of the sameresidential site bearing No. 63. It isstated that petitioners-2 and 3 havealready advanced a substantial amountof money towards consideration of thesale agreement. The agreement of salestipulated that the sale shall be completedwithin a period of six months. Thegrievance of the 2nd and 3rd petitioners isthat the respondent B. D. A. has interferedwith the said property without acquiringthe site and have formed storm waterdrain on the site as a result of which thesite is rendered useless from the pointof view of construction of a residentialbuilding on it. Petitioner-2 and 3 filedan application for being impleaded andthe same was allowed and they have joinedhands with the 1st petitioner since all the3 petitioners are affected by the impugnedaction of the B. D. A. Petitioners-2 and 3are worse affected since they have beenput in possession of the site by the 1stpetitioner following the execution of anagreement of sale. It is stated in the writpetition that since the request of thepetitioners to the officials of the B. D. A. wasin vain, they were constrained to approachthis Court by filing the writ petition.
( 2 ) IT is contended on behalf of thepetitioners that the digging of the site inquestion is illegal and arbitrary and theb. D. A. had no authority of law to causethe digging of the site and that there is a contravention of Article 300a of the constitution of India. It is also contended that the B. D. A. did not even inform the petitioners of the intention of digging a storm water drain across the site before doing so. In the process, the aggrieved petitioners did not have an opportunity of bargaining for an alternative site of similar dimension with the B. D. A.
( 3 ) IN the statement of objections filed on behalf of the B. D. A. , it is stated that the respondent notified the Society which allotted the site in question, regarding the construction of a storm water drain and that the Society gave its consent for the construction. But it is admitted that the respondent has utilised a portion of the site bearing No. 63 for the construction of the storm water drain and that the respondent is willing to provide an equal extent of the land in the adjacent civic amenity site. It is also Contended that the B. D. A. has not released the site in favour of the Society and, therefore, the question of issuing a notice to the petitioners does not arise.
( 4 ) PETITIONERS have sought for a mandamus directing the respondent to refrain from interfering with the petitioners' possession and enjoyment of site bearing no. 63 and a direction to the respondent to restore the site to its original condition before the respondent interfered with the site in question.
( 5 ) THE point for consideration is whether the interference by constructing a storm water drain on the site in question is justified and whether the petitioners are entitled to the reliefs sought in the writ petition.
( 6 ) UNDISPUTED is the fact that the respondent has made an inroad on the site belonging to petitioners-2 and 3 who are put in possession of the site by the vendor. Another fact which is beyond dispute is that none of the petitioners was notified and their consent was not taken by the b. D. A. before venturing to dig the site for the purpose of opening a storm water drain. In the absence of such a consent from the petitioners who claim to