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

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

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