Dr Vishalakshamma A S vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9211 Kant

                            1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                         BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

     WRIT PETITION NO.46429 OF 2013 (LB-BMP)

BETWEEN:

DR. VISHALAKSHAMMA A.S.,
D/O SEBU SANGGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
No.27, IV MAIN ROAD,
CHAMARAJPET,
BANGALORE-560018
SINCE DEAD BY HER LR

DR. SHIVSHANKAR DUNDAPPA KOLHAPURE,
H/O LATE DR. A.S.VISHALAKSHI,
S/O LATE DUNDAPPA KOLHAPURE,                Amended as per court
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,                        order dated 27.01.2016.
DOOR NO.27, 4TH MAIN ROAD,
CHAMARAJPET,
BANGALORE-18
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR

DR. VISHALAKSHI SHIVASHANKAR FOUNDATION (REGD.)
REGISTERED OFFICE AT No.27,
4TH MAIN ROAD,
CHAMARAJPET,
BENGALURU-570018,
REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEES

1.    DR. SUDHIR R. PATIL
      S/O RUDRAPPA S. PATIL
      AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
      RESIDING AT FLAT NO.2-3, BLOCK 'B',
      No.36-39, RELIANCE MANSIONS,
                            2


     HARIRAM-AILDAS LAYOUT,
     VIAJAYANGAR,
     BENGALURU-560040.

2.   SANJAY S. BELAWAL
     S/O SRI. SHIVAPRASAD S. BELAWAI,
     AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
     RESIDING AT No.,
     ANARIYA DWELLINGTON,
     1ST MAIN, 6TH CROSS,
     BEHIND STERLING APTS,
     DOLLARS COLONY,
     BENGALURU-560094.

3.   JAGADISH C. PATIL
     S/O SRI. CHANDRAKANT R. PATIL,
     AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
     RESIDING AT FLOAT No.131, PHASE 2,
     ADARSH PALM MEADOWS,
     RAMAGONDANAHALLI WHITE FIELD,
     BENGALURU-560066.

4.   SUSHILKUMAR S. PATIL
     S/O SURYAKANTH R. PATIL,
     AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
     RESIDING AT FLAT No.S-3, BLOCK 'B',
     No.36-39, RELIANCE MANSIONS,
     HARIRAM-AILDAS LAYOUT,
     VIAJAYANGAR,
     BENGALURU-560040.

5.   DAYANAN S. TUBACHI
     S/O SHIVALINGAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
     RESIDING NEAR R.R. BUS STAND,
     MAHAVEERANAGAR (NORTH)
     CHIKODI, BELGAUM-591201.

     AMENDED AS PER COURT ORDER
     DATED 31.05.2022.
                                           ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. B.K.MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE)
                              3


AND:

BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
BANGALORE,
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER
                                              ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. S.N.PRASHANTHCHANDRA, ADVOCATE)

      THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENT TO PAY PRESENT MARKET VALUE BY WAY OF
COMPENSATION IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY BELONGING TO
PETITIONER MEASURING EAST TO WEST 240 FEET AND NORTH
TO SOUTH 13 FEET SITUATE BETWEEN SITE No.13, 14, 15, 16
AND 17, YEDIYUR, NAGASANDRA, TATA SILK FARM, III CROSS,
BANGALORE.

       THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

                          ORDER

The petitioner (since deceased) represented by her

legal representatives, has sought for a writ in the nature of

mandamus directing the respondent to pay present market

value in respect of the property measuring East to West :

240 feet and North to South : 13 feet situated between

Site Nos.13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 of Yediyur Nagasandra,

Tata Silk Farm, III Cross, Bangalore.

2. The petitioner claims that she had purchased

two adjacent plots in plot No.77 formed in Sy.No.56/1 of

Yediyur Nagasandra, Tata Silk Farm, III Cross, Bangalore,

in terms of two sale deeds dated 09.01.1961 and

30.10.1958. She claimed that she had been in possession

of the aforesaid site. She claimed that she filed an

application before the concerned authorities for formation

of sites in the said plot No.77 and after obtaining

permission, formed 5 sites bearing Nos.13 to 17. The

khatha of the properties stood in the name of the

petitioner. When things stood thus, she disposed off some

sites and retained a site measuring 10 feet x 50 feet.

During October, 1988, some workers of the respondent

entered upon the said site and started forming a road in an

area measuring East to West : 240 feet and North to

South: 13 feet including the property belonging to the

petitioner. She, thereafter, approached the Assistant

Executive Engineer, BBMP and submitted a representation

dated 11.10.1988 not to trespass upon her property.

However, on 23.04.1989, the officials of the respondent

again started laying a road on the property, which was

protested by the petitioner. However, the respondent

represented to the petitioner that she was entitled for

compensation. Since the respondent had attempted to

form the road without following due process of law, the

petitioner was compelled to file O.S.No.2486/1989 for

perpetual injunction against the respondent and its

officers. The respondent denied the title of the petitioner

before the Civil Court and contended that a road existed,

which was tried to be asphalted. The suit filed by the

petitioner was decreed and the respondent was restrained

from interfering with the possession of the petitioner. The

respondent filed RFA No.608/1998 before this Court, which

was dismissed on 13.01.1998. The petitioner claimed that

when she visited the property in question in January,

2012, she noticed that the respondent in gross violation of

the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.2486/1989 had

formed the road illegally, which compelled the petitioner to

cause a notice demanding the respondent to pay the

compensation. The respondent failed to comply with the

demand, which compelled the petitioner to file

W.P.No.17203/2013, which was allowed by this Court and

the respondent was directed to consider the legal notice

issued by the petitioner on 17.02.2012. The respondent

still did not consider the representation of the petitioner

and therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking

the reliefs as mentioned above.

3. During the pendency of this writ petition, the

petitioner died and her legal representatives are brought

on record.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners

submitted that in view of the decree passed by the Trial

Court, the respondent could not have formed the road and

therefore, the respondent has clearly violated the property

rights of the petitioner without following the due process of

law and was therefore bound to pay the compensation at

the present market value.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the

other hand, submitted that the case of the petitioner would

be considered in accordance with law and appropriate

orders would be passed determining the compensation

payable to the petitioner. However, the learned counsel

submitted that the legal representatives of the petitioner

may be directed to furnish the particulars of the property

claimed by the petitioners so as to identify the entitlement

of the petitioners for the compensation.

6. It is sad that even after the disposal of

O.S.No.2486/1989 and RFA No.608/1988, the respondent

has formed a road with impunity and thereby undermined

the rights of the petitioner. It is also unfortunate that the

respondent did not consider the claim of the petitioner for

compensation despite being directed by this Court to do so

in W.P.No.17203/2013. The petitioner has since expired

but yet her grievance was not remedied by the respondent

during her life time.

7. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is

disposed off. The respondent is directed to consider the

case of the petitioner forthwith and grant compensation as

per the present market value in respect of the area to

which the petitioner is entitled to. In order to enable the

respondent to determine the area owned by the petitioner

and the area lost for the formation of the road, the legal

representatives of the petitioner are directed to place the

documents of title before the respondent on 14.07.2022.

The respondent is directed to dispose off the request of the

petitioner within a period of three months from the date of

legal representatives of the petitioner submitting the

representation along with the documents.

Sd/-

JUDGE

PMR