1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

WRIT PETITION NO. 1137 OF 2019(BDA-PIL)

BETWEEN:

SRINIVASAMURTHY T R

S/O LATE T K RAGAVENDRACHAR

AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

RESIDING AT NO. 29, 4^TH CROSS

AGS LAYOUT, AREHALLI

SUBRAMANYAPURA POST

UTTARAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 061

...PETITIONER

(BY CAPT.ARVIND SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR

SRI.PUNEETH K, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHROITY

BY ITS COMMISSIONER

PALACE ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST

BANGALORE - 560 020.

R

2

2. THE BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE

BY ITS COMMISSIONER

BANGALORE.

3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT

BANGALORE

4. BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LIMITED

BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

BRIGADE TOWERS, PENT HOUSE

NO.135, BRIGADE ROAD

BANGALORE - 560 025.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.M.N.SUDEV HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1;

SRI.AMITH DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2;

SRI.V.SREENIDHI, AGA FOR R2;

SRI.V.SREENIVASA RAGHAVAN, SR.ADVOCATE FOR

SRI.P.CHINNAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-3 TO

ENSURE COMPLIANCE OF THE ORDER DATED 23.05.2014 PASSED

BY THE R-3 WHICH IS ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.,

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR

ORDER ON 17.09.2021, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF

ORDER THIS DAY, SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM J., MADE THE

FOLLOWING:

3

ORDER

The captioned writ petition is filed in the nature of public

interest litigation to issue a mandamus to the respondent to

comply the order dated 23.05.2014 passed by the 3^rd

respondent as per Annexure-C and also to direct the 1^st

respondent to recover possession of the parks relinquished by

the 4^th respondent in terms of relinquishment deed dated

30.6.2011 and also inspect residential complex developed by

respondent No.4 to ascertain as to whether storm water drain

running through his property is diverted with proper

sanctions/permissions and if not to take suitable remedial

action against the 4^th respondent.

2.

The petitioner has contended that an ancient

pathway runs through Survey Nos.20/4, 22/1, 22/8, 23/1,

22/3, 23/3, 22/6, 22/2, 22/7, 23/2 and 20/2 of Turahalli,

Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk and the residents of

Kariyanapalya use this pathway to reach other villages. The

petitioner has alleged at Para 2 of the writ petition that this

4

pathway was in existence till recently. The petitioner claims

that 4^th respondent has obtained a development plan to

develop the aforesaid land into a residential complex. The

grievance of the petitioner is that 4^th respondent has

undertaken development of block No.3 without taking any

steps to shift the pathway and thereby the 4^th respondent has

blocked the public pathway which was in existence. The

petitioner has also stated that pursuant to the order passed by

this Court in W.P.18028/2013, the 3^rd respondent has passed

an order permitting the 4^th respondent to shift the pathway

subject to certain conditions. The grievance of the petitioner

is that inspite of the aforesaid order, 4^th respondent has not

taken any steps to restore the public pathway.

3.

The petitioner has also alleged at Para 4 of the writ

petition that the 4^th respondent has unauthorizedly diverted

the storm water drain leading from Uttarahalli lake to

Vrushabhavathi canal and from there to another lake. The

petitioner has also alleged that 1^st respondent who is the

5

owner of the path has failed to preserve and develop the same

and permit the access to general public. On these set of

grounds, the present writ petition is filed.

4.

On receipt of notice, the contesting respondent

No.4 has filed statement of objections and to rebut the

allegations made by the petitioner has also placed on record,

the documents as per Annexure-F to P. The 4^th respondent

has m