Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
N.K. Sudhindrarao, J.
Union Of India - Appellant
Versus
Air Officer Commanding Air Force Station - Respondent
Regular First Appeal No. 493 of 2003
Decided On : 06-08-2020
PUBLIC ROAD - DISPUTED ROAD - PUBLIC RIGHT OF USER - RESTRICTION BY AIR FORCE - ALTERNATIVE ROAD - SECURITY CONCERNS - NATIONAL INTEREST - PUBLIC INTEREST - BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE - COURT'S DISCRETION - PUBLIC ROAD DECLARED AS PART OF AIR FORCE PROPERTY - RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY AIR FORCE ON PUBLIC USER - SUIT BY PUBLIC FOR DECLARATION OF PUBLIC ROAD AND INJUNCTION AGAINST RESTRICTIONS - TRIAL COURT DECREE IN FAVOR OF PUBLIC - APPEAL BY AIR FORCE - HELD, APPEAL ALLOWED - DISPUTED ROAD DECLARED AS PART OF AIR FORCE PROPERTY - PUBLIC USER RESTRICTED DUE TO SECURITY CONCERNS - ALTERNATIVE ROAD AVAILABLE - BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE IN FAVOR OF AIR FORCE - PUBLIC INTEREST OUTWEIGHED BY NATIONAL INTEREST - SUIT DISMISSED.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs, representing a social welfare association, filed a suit for declaration that a stretch of road between Gangamma Circle and Zam-Zam point, passing through the Air Force Ground Training Unit, is a public road and a high way under the common law. They sought a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, the Union of India, the State of Karnataka, and the Air Officer Commanding, Air Force Station, Jalahalli, from interfering with the right of user of the road by the plaintiffs and the members of the public. The defendants contended that the land in question was acquired by the Government for the Air Force and that the disputed road was part of the Air Force property. They also argued that there was an alternative road available to the public. The trial court decreed the suit in part, declaring the disputed road as a public road and granting a permanent injunction against the defendants. The defendants appealed against the judgment and decree.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the disputed road was indeed part of the Air Force property and that the restrictions imposed by the Air Force on public user were justified due to security concerns. The court also found that there was an alternative road available to the public, which was not as convenient as the disputed road but was still a viable option. The court held that the balance of convenience was in favor of the Air Force and that the public interest was outweighed by the national interest in securing the Air Force property. The court dismissed the suit.
Issues: 1. Whether the disputed road is a public road or part of the Air Force property? 2. Whether the restrictions imposed by the Air Force on public user are justified? 3. Whether there is an alternative road available to the public? 4. Whether the balance of convenience is in favor of the public or the Air Force? 5. Whether the public interest outweighs the national interest in securing the Air Force property?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the disputed road was part of the Air Force property and that the restrictions imposed by the Air Force on public user were justified due to security concerns. The court also found that there was an alternative road available to the public, which was not as convenient as the disputed road but was still a viable option. The court held that the balance of convenience was in favor of the Air Force and that the public interest was outweighed by the national interest in securing the Air Force property.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the suit.
JUDGMENT
N K Sudhindrarao, J. - This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 01.02.2003 passed in O.S. No.6504/1996 by the XXVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore (CCH No.9), wherein suit of the plaintiffs came to be decreed in part, declaring that disputed road (stretch of road between Gangamma Circle and the point called Zam-Zam) is a public road forming part of Bangalore-Doddaballapur road starting from Yeshwanthapura passing through Air Force Ground Training Unit branching at Zam-Zam point towards Yelahanka and Hesarghatta. Consequently, Defendants Nos.1 and 3 are also restrained by an order of permanent injunction from imposing any kind of restrictions on the right of user of the disputed road by the plaintiffs and the members of the public except in accordance with law. The prayer for mandatory injunction that was sought for directing defendant No.3 for the removal of such structures already erected came to be rejected.
2. The appeal is preferred by defendant Nos. 1 and 3 against the portion of the judgment and decree passed in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have not challenged the decree passed to the extent of dismissal.
3. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping, the parties herein are referred to in accordance with their nomenclature as held by them before the trial court.
4. The suit in O.S.No.6504/1996 was filed for the relief of:
"(A) Declaration that the stretch of the road lying between Gangamma Circle and a point called Zam Zam, either side of which the third defendant's training camp is situated, being a part of the public road starting from Yeshwanthapura passing through the Air Force ground training unit (third defendant) branching off at Zam Zam towards Yelahanka and Hesaraghatta, is a public road and a high way under the common law and that as a public road the plaintiff as well as other members of the public have a right to pass and repass and make use of it through out the day and night.
(B) Permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the right of user of the members of the plaintiff Association as well as the members of the public, either by physical restraint or by erecting any type of structures or barriers such as gates, check posts, road blocks etc., and mandatorily direct the removal of such structures already erected.
(C) Mandatory injunction directing the 3rd defendant for the removal of such structures already erected."
5. 1St plaintiff claims that the suit was filed in a representative capacity. The necessary formalities as per Order 1 Rule 8 CPC were complied with. Six other persons came forward to join the proceedings as additional plaintiffs.
6. The suit is filed on 17.09.96 against:
(1) Union of India represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi -110001;
(2) State of Karnataka represented by its Chief Secretary, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore;
(3) The Air Officer Commanding, Air Force Station, Jalahalli, Bangalore - 560 015.
7. The defendant Nos. 1 and 3 filed their statement but defendant No.2 did not. 1st plaintiff is an Association of Bangalore North Taluk, Yelahanka, Bangalore represented by its Office bearers.
8. 1St Plaintiff claims to be a Social Welfare Association of persons belonging to Bangalore North Taluk, Yelahanka. It is engaged in carrying out its primary objects of redressal of grievances of public and also catering to the welfare of its members and the residents of Bangalore North Taluk. 1st Plaintiff is a registered society under the Society's Registration Act, having its office bearers and one Subbanna was the President at the time of filing of the suit.
9. In substance the case of the plaintiffs is that they are interested in a strip of road branching of from the National Highway No.4 at Yeshwanthapur in Bangalore North Taluk, which passes through Yeshwanthapur Extension, Gokul Layout, HMT Factory; intersection of Subrato Mukherjee Road, Air Force Station, Jalahalli East and proceeding towards Yelah
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
