Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 779
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
N.V. ANJARIA, CJ, K.V. ARAVIND, JJ.
Janashakthi Welfare Layout Association - Appellant
Versus
The Chief Secretary, Bengaluru - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 10527 of 2024
Decided On : 28-05-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Vasanthappa
For the Respondents: Niloufer Akbar, N.R. Jagadeeshwara, Mohammed Moin Ulla, M. Muniraja
The construction of a retaining wall must adhere to scientifically determined heights to prevent flooding, outweighing alternative access requests that compromise public safety.
Headnote:(A) Public Interest Litigation - Construction of Bridge and Retaining Wall - The petitioner sought to prevent the construction of a bridge and to mandate completion of a retaining wall at 15 feet height to combat flooding from a Storm Water Drain (SWD). The court found that reducing the height to 4 feet would cause flooding in residential areas. (Paras 2.2, 10, 14, 17)
(B) Evidence and Study - The BBMP's technical report established the necessity of maintaining a retaining wall between 3 to 3.50 metres to mitigate flooding, while the request for a crossover was deemed unscientific. (Paras 10, 15)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a residents' association, contested the proposed reduction in retaining wall height due to concerns about increased flooding during monsoon season. The respondents disputed the necessity of the height, citing increased SWD width as justification.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the need for retaining wall construction at prescribed heights to ensure flood protection, dismissing alternative proposals that could compromise safety.
Issues: The court primarily considered whether the reduction of the retaining wall's height was justified and the implications of access for a residential apartment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that reducing wall height would risk flooding, endorsing a scientifically supported height as essential for public safety against flooding.
Result: Writ petition allowed with directions to complete construction of the retaining wall to prescribed height within six weeks.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. public interest litigation seeking to prevent flooding. (Para 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding retaining wall and flood risks. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. analysis of access and flooding evidence. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. court's decision to entertain the public interest litigation. (Para 16) |
| 5. directions for completion of construction to prevent flooding. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
JUDGMENT :
K.V. ARAVIND, J.
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Vasanthappa for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Niloufer Akbar for respondent No.1, learned advocate Mr. N.R. Jagadeeshwara for respondent Nos.2 to 5 and learned advocate Mr. Mohammed Moin Ulla for learned advocate Mr. M. Muniraja for respondent No.6.
2. The present writ petition, styled as a public interest litigation, has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent-authorities not to proceed with the construction of a bridge at the end of 10th Cross, S.R. Layout, Basavanapura Main Road, K.R. Puram, Bengaluru, and further to direct them to complete the construction of a retaining wall of uniform height, measuring 15 feet, near the 10th Cross.
2.1 The averments made in the petition disclose that the petitioner is a registered association formed by the residents of 10th, 11th and 12th Cross, Basavanapura Main Road, K.R. Puram, Bengaluru, with the objective of addressing common grievances and promoting mutual cooperation among the residents.
2.2 It is stated that a Storm Water Drain (SWD) runs adjacent to the 10th, 11th and 12th Cross. The entire area, including the portion in question, experiences flooding during the monsoon season. It is further averred that such flooding is attributable to the poor maintenance of the SWD. To address this issue, the Government proposed the construction of a retaining wall with a ‘U’-shaped storm water drainage system, with a view to prevent flooding during the monsoons. Taking into account the flow of water and the geographical conditions of the area, a retaining wall of 15 feet in height was constructed.
2.3 It is alleged that, at the instigation of respondent No.6, the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) halted the construction of the retaining wall at a height of 4 feet adjacent to the 10th Cross. It is further alleged that respondent No.6 is attempting to obstruct the construction of the retaining wall in order to facilitate the construction of a bridge across the SWD to provide access to respondent No.6 apartment from the 10th Cross.
2.4 It is contended that if the height of the retaining wall is reduced to 4 feet, the very purpose of constructing the wall with a height of 15 feet would be defeated, as such reduction would result in the diversion of water flow into the residential areas through the10th Cross.
3. Respondent Nos.2 to 5 – BBMP have filed a memo dated 24.08.2024 enclosing a technical report. As per the said report, the SWD has been developed to connect Devasandra Lake to Seegehalli Lake via S.R. Layout. The report states that the construction of the retaining wall, measuring 15 metres in length, remains incomplete due to the request made by respondent No.6 for access through the 10th Cross by reducing the height of the retaining wall.
3.1 It is further stated in the report that the height of the retaining wall on the upstream side is 3 metres, and on the downstream side is 3.5 metres. The report opines that the request of respondent No.6 to construct a crossover/culvert across the SWD at the exit of the 10th Cross is unscientific. For such construction, the height of the retaining wall would have to be reduced to 1.10 metres, which, if done, would lead to flooding and over-spillage of water, thereby adversely affecting the surrounding areas. The report also notes that the sanctioned plan issued by the Assistant Director, K.R. Puram, provides access to S.R. Layout through the 9th Cross, and, therefore, a crossover/culvert through the 10th Cross is unwarranted.
4. Respondent No.6 has filed a
