Back
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
V. Kamala W/o. Late M. Venkatesh – Appellant
Versus
Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, By its Commissioner – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs :
(b) Grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. Petitioner No.1 is the sister of respondents No.4, 6 and deceased respondent No.5. Petitioner No.2 is the husband of petitioner No.1. Property bearing Corporation No.10, Ramamurthy Nagar, Banaswadi belonged to M. Venkataramaiah, S/o Muniswamappa, father of petitioner No.1 and respondents No.4 to 6. During his lifetime, Sri. M. Venkataramaiah bifurcated the above property into five portions, three of the portions viz., portion, 3, 4 and 5 were bequeathed in favour of respondents No.4, 5 and 6 and as regards remaining two port
Section 265 of Act reads as vesting of public streets and their appurtenances in corporation.
The classification of a roadway as public or private under local laws necessitates resolution in civil court, with interim protections for public usage.
The court emphasized that public interest in access to a completed public road outweighs private claims, disallowing obstruction based on width specifications set by plaintiffs.
Property owners have an inherent right of access to public roads, irrespective of alternative routes; denial of access violates legal principles governing property rights.
Landowners adjacent to public roads maintain a fundamental right of access to their properties, regardless of alternate access points, supporting public interest and use.
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
