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