SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 31366

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ

WRIT PETITION NO.1981 OF 2020 (LB-BMP)

BETWEEN:

1.

M/S ASHED VALMARK

AN ASSOCIATION OF PERSON

REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSOCIATES

(a)

M/S. ASHED PROPERTIES AND INVESTMENTS

PRIVATE LIMITED

REPRESENTED BY ITS

MANAGING DIRECTOR,

SRI. SAMEER KHAN

(b)

M/S. VALMARK BUILDERS

A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM

REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER

SRI NAKODA CONSTRUCTION LIMITED

REPRESENTED BY ITS

DIRECTOR

MAHAVEER GULECHA

BOTH ARE SITUATED AT

NO.133/1, 10TH FLOOR,

RESIDENCY, RESIDENCY ROAD,

BENGALURU - 560025.

2.

REGENCY PINNACLE HEIGHTS

OWNERS ASSOCIATION

OFFICE SITUATED AT REGENCY PINNACLE HEIGHTS,

RACHENAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560077

REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY

2

MR. H. RAJENDRA KAMATH

S/O K.SUBHASCHANDRA KAMATH

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. K. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, SENIOR COUNSEL ALONG

WITH SRI PANINI A.H., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 .

STATE OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

VIDHANA SOUDHA

BENGALURU – 560 001

2.

THE COMMISSIONER

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE

N.R. SQUARE

BENGALURU – 560 001

3.

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

STORM WATER DRAIN DEPARTMENT

(YELAHANKA ZONE)

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE

BENGALURU – 560 001

4.

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS

BANGALORE EAST TALUK

BANGALORE – 560 036

5.

THE SURVEYOR

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF

LAND RECORDS

BANGALORE EAST TALUK

K.R. PURAM

BANGALORE – 560 036

6.

CIVIL AVIATION LAYOUT RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION

NO.58, CIVIL AVIATION LAYOUT,

RACHENAHALLI, NEAR RPH APARTMENT,

3

BANGALORE-560 077

REP BY ITS SECRETARY

SMT. RUKMINI S.,

W/O D.M.RAJESH

AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

7.

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

T. CHAWDAIAH ROAD,

KUMARA PARK WEST,

BANGALORE-560020

REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT

ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1, 4 AND 5;

SRI. K.N.PUTTEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2

AND 3;

SRI. B.S.JEEVAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.6

SRI D.N. NANJUNDA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL ALONG WITH

SRI K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.7

SRI

H.C.

SHIVARAMU,

ADVOCATE

FOR

PROPOSED

RESPONDENTS IN I.A. NO.2/2022)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH

THE

COMMUNICATION

DATED

28.10.2019

BEARING

NO.EE/SWD/BBMP/YZ/PR/105/19-20 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT

NO.3

DIRECTING

THE

PETITIONER

NO.2

TO

REMOVE

ENCROACHMENTS AND FACILITATE EARLY COMPLETION OF

STORM WATER DRAIN (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED

FOR

ORDERS

ON

13.09.2022

AND

COMING

ON

FOR

PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE

4

AT DHARWAD BENCH THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE

FOLLOWING:-

This Writ Petition is filed by petitioner No.1, who

claims to be an Association of Persons represented by

petitioner

Nos.1(a)

and

1(b),

who

apparently

are

developers and petitioner No.2, who is an Apartment

Owners’ Association. The petitioners claim that the land

bearing Sy.No.102 of Rachenahalli village, K.R. Pura hobli,

Bengaluru East Taluk, was converted for non-agricultural

purpose on 10.01.2005 and 19.02.2005 while the land

bearing Sy.No.100/4 was converted for non-agricultural

purpose in terms of the notification dated 14.12.1993. The

petitioners contend that an agreement dated 17.10.2006

was entered into between Sri B.Govindaraju, Sri Nakoda

Construction Private Limited and the petitioner No.1(a)

herein to develop 01 acre 26 guntas of land in

Sy.No.100/4 and 02 acres 26 guntas of land in Sy.No.102.

The petitioner No.1 claims to have purchased 01 acre 26

guntas of land in Sy.No.100/4 in terms of a deed of sale

5

dated 19.06.2007 and undertook joint development of 0-

14 guntas in Sy.No.100/4 in terms of two Joint

Development Agreements (JDAs) of even date i.e.,

14.03.2007. Likewise, petitioner No.1(b) represented by

its then partners, namely, M/s. Sri Nakoda Constructions

Private Limited and Sri B. Govindaraju purchased 01 acre

06 guntas in Sy.No.102 in terms of the sale deed dated

17.05.2006

and

petitioner

No.1

undertook

joint

development of 01 acre 20 guntas of land in Sy.No.102 in

terms of the JDA dated 07.02.2007. They claimed that

after obtaining all statutory clearances, the Bangalore

Development

Authority

(BDA)

had

sanctioned

a

development plan on 22.05.2008 to construct a multi-

dwelling residential apartment complex that was spread

over the land/s in Sy.No.100/4 and Sy.No.102 measuring

4 acres 29 guntas and kharab area of 03 guntas. Following

this, a Commencement Certificate was issued by the Joint

Director of Town Planning, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara

Palike (BBMP) on 13.07.2009. The petitioners claim that

the construction was completed in accordance with the

6

plan and the apartments were conveyed to various

purchasers. Later, the Joint Director of Town Planning

(North), BBMP issued an occupancy certificate in respect of

Blocks

‘A’

and

‘B’

of

the

apartment

complex

on

19.10.2013. A deed of declaration as prescribed under the

Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972 was registered

on 01.08.2012. The petitioners claim that nearly after

seven years of completion of the construction, the

respondent No.3 addressed a letter dated 28.10.2019

directing the petitioner No.2 to remove the encroachment

on the drain and facilitate the completion of the storm

water drain. It was claimed in the notice that the

respondent No.5 had visited the property on 07.08.2019

and had demarcated the portion that was allegedly

encroached by the petitioner No.2. The petitioners contend

that this was without notice to them and was therefore

illegal. Besides, the petitioners contend that at the time of

application for sanctioned plan, kharab land of 0-03 guntas

was identified in Sy.No.102. The petitioners contend that

the respondent No.4 had issued a memo on 23.07.2019

7

directing the respondent No.5 to survey the lands in

Sy.Nos.99, 100, 101 and 102 of Rachenahalli village and

demarcate the encroached portion. Based on this, the

respondent No.5 conducted a survey on 07.08.2019,

allegedly, without notice to the petitioners. The petitioners

contend that the construction put up by them is in

accordance with the plan sanctioned and as per the

Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP), the drain flows

adjoining the compound wall and not inside the property of

the petitioners. Later the respondent No.3 has again issued

a communication dated 11.11.2019 stating that the drain

enters the north side compound wall of the apartment

complex and exits at the west side compound wall and

directed the petitioner No.2 to approach the respondent

No.4 - Assistant Director of Land Records (ADLR) for any

clarification. The petitioners contend that they have not

encroa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top