1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON9BLE MR.JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL
WRIT PETITION NO.13554 OF 2022 (LB - BMP)
BETWEEN:
M/S. V.M.R. CONSTRUCTIONS,
BY ITS PARTNER
SRI. K.R.VENKATESH,
S/O K. RAMA NAIDU,
NO.63/8, I MAIN ROAD,
K.E.B ROAD, ITTAMADU,
BANGALORE SOUTH,
BANASHANKARI III STAGE,
BANGALORE 3 560 085.
& PETITIONER
(BY SRI.KANTHARAJ H., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.KESHAV R AGNIHOTRI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THE DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU 3 560 001.
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2.
THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER,
BRUHATH BENGALURU
MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP),
N.R. SQAURE,
BANGALORE 3 560 002.
3.
THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER SOUTH,
BRUHATH BENGALURU
MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP),
9TH MAIN, 9TH CROSS,
2
JAYANAGAR, 2ND BLOCK,
BENGALURU 3 560 011.
4.
THE JOINT COMMISSIONER SOUTH
BRUHATH BENGALURU
MAHANAGARA PALIKE(BBMP),
9TH MAIN, 9TH CROSS,
JAYANAGAR 2ND BLOCK,
BENGALURU 3 560 011.
5.
THE CHIEF ENGINEER SOUTH
BRUHATH BENGALURU
MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP),
9TH MAIN, 9TH CROSS,
JAYANAGAR 2ND BLOCK,
BENGALURU 3 560 011.
6.
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER SOUTH,
BRUHATH BENGALURU
MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP),
9TH MAIN, 9TH CROSS,
JAYANAGAR 2ND BLOCK,
BENGALURU 3 560 011.
7.
THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (AEE),
BRUHATH BENGALURU
MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP),
PADMANABHANAGAR RANGE, 11TH MAIN,
BENGALURU 3 560 070.
8.
THE COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (BDA),
K P WEST
BANGALORE 3 560 020.
9.
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, SOUTH,
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (BDA),
BANASHANKARI,
BANGALORE 3 560 070.
10.
THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (AEE), SOUTH,
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (BDA),
BANASHANKARI,
BANGALORE 3 560 070.
3
11.
THE PRESIDENT,
SRI RADHAKRISHNA HOUSE
BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY (HBCS) LTD.,
NO.692, OUT HOUSE, 4TH BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE 3 560 011.
& RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.M.C.NAGASHREE, AGA FOR R1;
SRI.N.R.JAGADEESWARA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R7;
SRI.K.MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R8 3 R10;
SRI.B.V.OMPRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R11)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE R2 TO
6/BBMP PERTAINING TO THE REPRESENTATION OF THE
PETITIONER DATED 05.05.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE 3 Q;
DECLARE THAT THE R2 TO 6/BBMP HAS NOT ACQUIRED ANY
LANDS, SITES, CIVIC AMENITY SITES, AND PARK SITES IN
SRI RADHAKRISHNA LAYOUT 3RD STAGE, IN LAND BEARING
SY.NO.130/2 (OLD NO.71), KATHRIGUPPE, UTTARAHALLI
HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
The present petition is filed by the petitioner
seeking for the following reliefs:
"i) Call for the entire records on the file of the
respondent Nos.2 to 6/BBMP pertaining to the
representation of the petitioner dated 05.05.2022
vide Annexure-Q.
ii)
Declare that the respondent Nos.2 to 6/BBMP has
not acquired any lands, sites, civic amenity sites,
and park sites in Sri Radhakrishna layout 3rd
stage, in land bearing Sy.No.130/2 (Old No.71),
4
Kathriguppe, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South
Taluk.
iii) Declare that the respondent Nos.2 to 6/BBMP has
not acquired site No.45/A, in Sri Radhakrishna
Layout 3rd Stage, in land bearing Sy.No.130/2
(Old
No.71),
Kathriguppe,
Uttarahalli
Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk.
iv) Declare that the demolition of the buildings in
site No.45/A by the respondent Nos.2 to 6/BBMP
in Sri Radhakrishna Layout 3rd Stage, in land
bearing Sy.No.130/2 (Old No.71), Kathriguppe,
Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, is
illegal, arbitrary and without authority of law.
v)
Declare that the respondent Nos.2 to 6/BBMP has
not called tender notification for formation of
park in Sri Radhakrishna Layout 3rd Stage, in
land
bearing
Sy.No.130/2
(Old
No.71),
Kathriguppe, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South
Taluk.
vi) Declare that the in Sri Radhakrishna Layout 3rd
Stage, in land bearing Sy.No.130/1 (Old No.71),
Kathriguppe, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South
Taluk, is not at all formed.
vii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in
the nature of Certiorari quashing the C.A. site
relinquishment deed dated 05.01.1990 executed
by Sri Radhakrishna House Building Co-operative
Society (HBCS) vide Annexure-T.
viii) Declare that the
respondent/BDA resolution
No.35/2007 dated 28.03.2007 vide Annexure-R
5
and the layout plant at Annexure-S prepared by
the BDA is illegal, without authority of law and
liable to be quashed.
ix) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in
the
nature
of
mandamus,
directing
the
respondent/BBMP
to
pay
the
cost
of
the
demolished building over the schedule property
demolished illegally.
x)
Pass such other orders as deemed fit in the
circumstances of the case along with cost of the
above writ petition and allow the same in the
interest of justice and equity."
2.
It is the case of the petitioner that he is the
owner of site No.45/A, BBMP PID No.55-671/45A,
formed in Sy.No.130/2 (Old No.71), Radha Krishna
HBCS Layout, III Stage, Kathriguppe, Uttarahalli Hobli,
Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred
to as 'subject property' for short).That the petitioner
purchased the subject property in terms of the deed of
sale dated 17.11.2012 from its vendor Smt.K.Prabha.
The BDA has issued katha certificate in respect of the
subject property in the year 1997 and have been
receiving the property taxes and the said area was
transferred by the BDA to the BBMP in the year 1998.
6
That the BDA had issued a sanctioned plan for the
purpose of construction of a building on the subject
property. That originally subject property formed part of
a layout, developed by Sri Radhakrishna House Building
Co-operative Society. The BDA had approved the plan
and released the sites in favour of the said society.
Thus, the layout which was formed was in accordance
with sanctioned plan and the subject property was
released pursuant of the order by the BDA. That being
the matter, the respondent/BBMP who is now in control
of the area for the purpose of maintenance of the civic
amenities is claiming the right over the property
belonging to the petitioner and is interfering with the
possession
and
enjoyment
of
the
petitioner,
constraining the petitioner to approach this Court
seeking the aforesaid reliefs.
3.
Objection statements have been filed by the
BBMP inter-alia questioning the very maintainability of
the petition. It is contended that the subject property
being claimed by the petitioner formed part of the civic
amenity (CA) site and that the CA site which is a park
7
was part of the property which is relinqu
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.