The admission made by the appellant's counsel was not binding and appeared to have been made under a misconception of law. The court allowed the appellant to adduce additional documentary evidence, leading to the remand of the matter for fresh consideration.

JUDGMENT

Alok Aradhe, J. - This intra court appeal has been filed against the order dated 11.07.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which writ petition preferred by the appellant has been disposed of. In order to appreciate appellant's grievance, relevant facts need mention, which are stated infra.

2. The appellant is the owner and is in possession of the land bearing Sy. Nos. 79, 80, 81, 82/182/2, 82/4, 83/5,57/2 and 57/3 totally measuring 17 acres 18 guntas plus 1 acre 6 guntas, both situated at Yemare Village, Sarjapur Hobli Anekal Taluk. The appellant obtained approval on 10.11.2005 for developing a housing layout on an area measuring 17 acres and 24 guntas of the aforesaid property from the Bangalore Metropolitan Regional Developmental Authority. Clause 11 of the Conditions imposed in the aforesaid order granting approval provides that internal roads of the layout shall not be utilized in a manner so as to restrict the access to neighboring lands. Anekal Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the Authority' for short) approved the modified layout plan on 20.04.2011 for a housing layout and issued commencement certificate. Clause 11 of the conditions imposed in the approval of modified layout plan provides that from the roads of the developed layout, existing access to the neighbouring lands shall not be restricted.

3. In pursuance of the commencement certificate, the development was completed as per the modified layout plan and houses were built by various persons who had purchased the sites. The authority issued a notice on 06.03.2015 inter alia on the ground that compound wall constructed around the property restricts access to neighboring lands and therefore, the appellant has violated the condition imposed in the commencement certificate. The appellant was required to demolish the compound wall. The appellant assailed the validity of the aforesaid notice in a writ petition viz., W.P. No. 10602/2015. This court by an order dated 16.09.2016 disposed of the writ petition with a direction that notice dated 06.03.2015 be treated as show cause notice and appellant was permitted to file a reply. The authority was thereafter granted liberty to pass appropriate orders.

4. The appellant filed objections to the notice dated 06.03.2015. The Authority passed an order on 02.11.2016 that the roads in the developed layout has been handed over to the respondent. Therefore, the same are public roads and from these roads, access to neighboring property should not be prevented and the compound wall constructed by the appellant was ordered to be demolished. The said order was challenged by the appellant in a writ petition viz., W.P. No. 61887/2016. The learned Single Judge in view of statement made by learned counsel for the appellant, disposed of the writ petition with the direction to the appellant to remove the part of the compound wall from the public road in question within a period of 15 days for allowing the free entry and exit, ingress and egress on such public roads of approved layout plan. The authority was granted the liberty to remove compound wall to the requisite extent at the cost of the appellant. The learned Single Judge rejected the application for impleadment of the proposed Respondent No. 2 to 7 as the writ petition itself was disposed of. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant while inviting the attention of this court to the application under Order XLI Rule 27 for taking additional documents on record submits that in the Village map, prepared by Superintendent, Maps Division Survey and Land Records, Revenue Department, Government of Karnataka, no public road has been shown on the lands in question. Our attention has also been invited to the master plan as well as concerned Google map in support of aforesaid contention. It is also urged that in a private layout, public roads cannot exist and public in general cannot have access to the