2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 53180
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.32100 OF 2012(LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. A V BASAVARADHYA,
S/O LATE S VEERANNADEVARU,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
RESIDING AT DOOR NO.1067,
YAJAMAN SIDDAPPA STREET,
BEHIND MANDIPET, TUMKUR -572 101.
BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMING
&PETITIONER
(BY SRI. V B SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
TUMKUR TOWN,
TUMKUR 3 572 101.
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
2. SRI. G S PRASAD,
S/O SRI. G.R SIDDABASAVAIAH,
DEAD BY LR9S
SMT.LEELAVATHI,
W/O LATE G S PRASAD,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
R/AT 2ND CROSS, GANDHI NAGAR,
TUMAKURU 3 572 101.
2
3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
BESCOM, HORAPETE ROAD,
KOTHI THOPE, NEAR CHETANA SCHOOL,
TUMKUR 3 572 101.
&RESPONDENTS
(BY MISS. SAKSHI M KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SUBRAMANYA R, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. S V PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R2(A);
R2-DISMISSED AS ABATED;
NOTICE TO R3 IS D/W V.C.O DATED 5.09.2012)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1,
THE
CITY
MUNCIPAL
COUNCIL,
TUMKUR
TOWN,
TUMKUR
REPRESENTED
BY
ITS
COMMISSIONER
TO
CONSIDER
THE
REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 27.11.10 VIDE
ANNX-G GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER FOR TO REMOVE COMPLETE
ENCROACHMENT OF CONSERVANCY BY R2 AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THROUGH
PHYSICAL
HEARING,
THIS
DAY,
THE
COURT
MADE
THE
FOLLOWING:-
The short grievance of petitioner is against the non-removal
of encroachment despite his representation dated 27.11.2010, a
copy
whereof
is
at
Annexure-G.
Therefore,
petitioner
has
approached this court seeking a direction to the respondents to
accomplish the job. After service of notice, the respondents have
entered appearance through their Panel Counsel & oppose the Writ
Petition.
3
2.
A Co-ordinate Judge of this court vide interim order
dated 20.9.2012 had said as under:
<Learned counsel for the 1st respondent to file an
affidavit over: a) whether the offensive portion of the
building
constructed
by
the
2nd
respondent
is
dismantled; b) whether the debris in the conservancy
after the dismantling of the property is removed; c)
whether there is free flow of the drainage water in the
conservancy; and d) With what authority 3rd respondent
shifted the transformer from a location opposite to 2nd
respondent9s building to the conservancy.
List on 24.09.2012.=
The same Judge subsequently made another direction on 24.9.2012
with the following text:
<Learned counsel for the respondent - CMC files an
affidavit of one Jr. Engineer. Affidavit is taken on
record. The averments do not disclose compliance of
the order of this court. Learned Counsel submits that if
granted 15 days time, needful will be done.
2. There is a need to ascertain as to the linking
of storm water drains to the main storm water drain in
Tumkur CMC. The Commissioner is directed to file a
blueprint of the number of small drains that are to be
connected to the main drain and submit a report in this
regard by 3/10/2012.
Petitioner may file a counter affidavit.=
4
3.
The 1st respondent through its Junior Engineer namely
Sri.T.R.Raghunath has filed an affidavit dated 24.9.2012 which
reads as under:
<AFFIDAVIT
I, T.R.Raghunath, S/o H.Ramesh aged about 42 years,
working as Junior Engineer at the City Municipal
Council, Tumkur, residing at Sarasvatipuram, Tumkur,
now at Bangalore, solemnly affirm and state on oath as
follows:
1. I state that I have joined the Respondent No.1 as a
junior engineer in June 2012. I have about 15
years9 experience as an engineer. As such, since I
was not working with the Respondent No.1 at the
relevant time, I perused the records and conducted
a spot inspection of the premises on 21/09/12 that
are the subject matter of the current writ petition.
2. Upon inspection, it was discovered that the entire
encroachment of the Respondent No.2 has been
removed. Even the debris has been removed from
the conservancy. Since there was encroachment
earlier, the existing storm water drain ends midway
in the conservancy and has to be linked to the main
storm drain on the road. A period of fifteen days
will be required to provide this connectivity.
3. As regards the transformer, it has been moved by
BESCOM since its earlier location was causing
congestion of the road and was also unsafe. The
position of the transformer does not affect the drain.
It is therefore humbly requested that this Hon9ble court
be pleased to grant the Respondent No.2 a period of 15
5
days to connect the storm water drain as detailed
above.=
Thereafter, a counter affidavit was filed by the petitioner on
3.10.2012 controverting the above version of the Engineer.
4.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
after adverting to the material placed on record in the form of
affidavit and photographs, this court is convinced that the grievance
of petitioner has been duly addressed by removing the subject
encroachment. Although, an Electrical Transformer has been
installed in the area after removal of encroachment, learned
counsel
appearing
for
the
respondents
submits
that
the
arrangement is made for underground drainage and thus, there is
no possibility of any water accumulating in the place. This
contention is prima facie sustainable.
In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed off
as having become infructuous. However, the disposal of this case
shall not come in