2016 Supreme(Kar) 525
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
VINEET KOTHARI, J.
C MUNI REDDY S/O LATE CHINNAPPA REDDY - PETITIONER
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA AND ORS. –RESPONDENTS
WRIT PETITION No. 51666 of 2016 (LB-RES)
Decided On : 20-10-2016
FOR THE PETITIONER: ACHAPPA P B
FOR THE RESPONDENTS: V SREENIDHI
Headnote:KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT, 1976 – Sections 228-A & 288-B – Demolition of encroachment of Rajakaluves and Storm water drains -Question whether there is encroachment or not etc. are question of fact and has to be adjudicated by Competent Civil Court. Writ Petition is not maintainable.
1. The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers;
“(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ not to transgress into the property of the petitioner or trespass or encroach and usurp the property of the petitioner under the guise of Rajakaluve running through the property of the petitioner and to implement the removal of the encroachment of Rajakaluve, if any as per the Survey Sketch produced at Annexure-C.
(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to the respondents not to deviate Rajakaluve from the Survey Sketch as published in the website of the BBMP and to implement the removal of encroachment of Rajakaluve as denoted in the Survey Sketch/Map published on the website of BBMP and produced at Annexure-B while removing the encroachers of Rajakaluve from the encroachment; and
(iii) Grant costs and such further reliefs as may be deemed appropriate under the circumstances of the case.”
2. By an interlocutory order, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, on 28.09.2016, directed the officers of the BBMP to conduct survey of the schedule property on 5.10.2016 and till 21.10.2016, status quo was directed to be maintained. The order passed by the co-ordinate Bench is quoted below for ready reference;
“The learned counsel for the State is directed to accept notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. Sreenidhi V., the learned counsel is directed to accept notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
Mr. Sreenidhi V., the learned counsel for BBMP submits that the BBMP would like to inspect the scheduled property.
Therefore, the petitioner is directed to remain on the schedule property on 5th of October 2016. The officers of the BBMP are directed to begin their survey at 10.30 a.m. on 5.10.2016, and submit the report of the survey before this Court on 18th October 2016. Till 21.10.2016, the statusquo shall be maintained.
List this case on 18.10.2016.”
3. Today, Mr. Sreenidhi. V, learned counsel for Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), has filed an affidavit before this Court of one Mr. P. Ashok, Assistant Executive Engineer, Arekere Sub-Division, BBMP, Bengaluru, a copy of which has been served on the learned counsel for the petitioner. Paragraphs 4 to 6 of the said affidavit are quoted below for ready reference;
“4. I state that in pursuance of the said Order, the BBMP has conducted a survey through the Office of the Joint Director of Land Records and have identified encroachments on the Rajakaluves/Storm Water Drains. Based on the marking of the surveyors of the Joint Director of Land Records, the BBMP is demolishing the portions of encroachments by exercising their power under Section 228A and 288B of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976.
5. I state that the BBMP is undertaking the exercise of demolition only upon the survey report provided to them by the Survey Department, i.e., the Office of the Joint Director of Land Records. In the instant case, a survey has been conducted and 8 feet of encroachment on the drain of 8 feet is identified and marked by the Survey Department. The BBMP through the Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force and the jurisdictional police has marked in the presence of the said surveyors.
6. I state that, as per the survey conducted, the petitioner’s property does not fall on the Rajakaluve. However, certain trees which were on the Rajakjaluves were demolished. The claim of the petitioner that the BBMP has trespassed or encroached or usurped the property of the petitioner under the guise of Rajakaluve running through the property of the petitioner is wholly misplaced and misconceived. The BBMP has no intention to demolish and property which is not on the Rajakaluve. The BBMP is clearing only encroachments on the Rajakaluve.”
4. Upon perusal of the material placed before the Court, this Court is of the opinion that firstly, the case of this nature is not a fit case to be entertained by way of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India