Karnataka High Court
Janashakthi Welfare Layout ... vs The Chief Secretary on 28 May, 2025
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MAY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION No.10527 OF 2024 (GM-RES-PIL)
BETWEEN:
1. JANASHAKTHI WELFARE LAYOUT ASSOCIATION (R),
No.17,11TH CROSS,
BASAVANAPURA MIAN ROAD,
K.R. PURAM,
BENGALURU-560036.
RERPESENTED BYITS PRESIDENT,
SRI.M.R. MAHANTESH,
MOBILE No. 9845049535,
PAN No. AFPPM6020C
EMAIL: [email protected]
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI VASANTHAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNEMENT OF KARNATAKA,
VIDHANASOUDHA,
BENGALURU 560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
BBMP, N.R. SQUARE,
HUDSON CIRCLE,
BENGALURU 560 027.
3. CHIEF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
BBMP, HOYSALANAGAR,
-2-
K.R PURAM,
BENGALURU 560 036.
4. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
STORM WATER DRAINANGE,
JAYANAGAR SHOPPING COMPLEX,
BENGALURU 560 098.
5. THE ASSISTANT WARD EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
BBMP,
BENGALURU 560 027.
6. SRIPAD OWNERS ASSOCIATION,
9TH CROSS, BASAVANAPURA MAIN ROAD,
K R PURAM,
BENGALURU 560 036.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI N.R. JAGADEESHWARA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R5;
SRI MOHAMMED MOIN ULLA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI M. MUNIRAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT
OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO COMPLETE
THE RETAINING WALL, LEFT OUT AT THE DEAD END OF THE 10TH
CROSS, S.R. LAYOUT, BASAVANAPURA MAIN ROAD, K.R PURAM,
BENGALURU-560036 AND WITH FURTHER DIRECTION TO THE
RESPONDENT BBMP NOT TO PUT UP CULVERT/BRIDGE NEAR
10TH CROSS, S.R LAYOUT, BASAVANAPURA MAIN ROAD, K.R
PURAM BENGALURU-560036.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
N. V. ANJARIA
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND)
Heard learned advocate Mr. Vasanthappa for the petitioner,
learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Niloufer Akbar for
respondent No.1, learned advocate Mr. N.R. Jagadeeshwara for
respondent Nos.2 to 5 and learned advocate Mr. Mohammed Moin
Ulla for learned advocate Mr. M. Muniraja for respondent No.6.
2. The present writ petition, styled as a public interest litigation,
has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent-authorities not
to proceed with the construction of a bridge at the end of 10th
Cross, S.R. Layout, Basavanapura Main Road, K.R. Puram,
Bengaluru, and further to direct them to complete the construction
of a retaining wall of uniform height, measuring 15 feet, near the
10th Cross.
2.1 The averments made in the petition disclose that the
petitioner is a registered association formed by the residents of
10th, 11th, and 12th Cross, Basavanapura Main Road, K.R. Puram,
Bengaluru, with the objective of addressing common grievances
and promoting mutual cooperation among the residents.
2.2 It is stated that a Storm Water Drain (SWD) runs adjacent to
the 10th, 11th, and 12th Cross. The entire area, including the portion
in question, experiences flooding during the monsoon season. It is
further averred that such flooding is attributable to the poor
maintenance of the SWD. To address this issue, the Government
proposed the construction of a retaining wall with a 'U'-shaped
storm water drainage system, with a view to prevent flooding during
the monsoons. Taking into account the flow of water and the
geographical conditions of the area, a retaining wall of 15 feet in
height was constructed.
2.3 It is alleged that, at the instigation of respondent No.6, the
Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) halted the
construction of the retaining wall at a height of 4 feet adjacent to
the 10th Cross. It is further alleged that respondent No.6 is
attempting to obstruct the construction of the retaining wall in order
to facilitate the construction of a bridge across the SWD to provide
access to respondent No.6 apartment from the 10th Cross.
2.4 It is contended that if the height of the retaining wall is
reduced to 4 feet, the very purpose of constructing the wall with a
height of 15 feet would be defeated, as such reduction would result
in the diversion of water flow into the residential areas through the
10th Cross.
3. Respondent Nos.2 to 5 - BBMP have filed a memo dated
24.08.2024 enclosing a technical report. As per the said report, the
SWD has been developed to connect Devasandra Lake to
Seegehalli Lake via S.R. Layout. The report states that the
construction of the retaining wall, measuring 15 metres in length,
remains incomplete due to the request made by respondent No.6
for access through the 10th Cross by reducing the height of the
retaining wall.
3.1 It is further stated in the report that the height of the retaining
wall on the upstream side is 3 metres, and on the downstream side
is 3.5 metres. The report opines that the request of respondent
No.6 to construct a crossover/culvert across the SWD at the exit of
the 10th Cross is unscientific. For such construction, the height of
the retaining wall would have to be reduced to 1.10 metres, which,
if done, would lead to flooding and over-spillage of water, thereby
adversely affecting the surrounding areas. The report also notes
that the sanctioned plan issued by the Assistant Director, K.R.
Puram, provides access to S.R. Layout through the 9th Cross, and,
therefore, a crossover/culvert through the 10th Cross is
unwarranted.
4. Respondent No.6 has filed a Statement of Objections
contending that the width of the Storm Water Drain (SWD) has
been increased from 6 feet to 15 feet, and, as a consequence, the
height of the retaining wall as proposed by the BBMP is
unwarranted. It is further stated that the apartment complex of
respondent No.6 houses more than 70 families, and if the
construction of a crossover/culvert at the exit of the 10th Cross is
not permitted, the said families would be deprived of access to the
apartment. It is also contended that the decision of the BBMP to
construct a high retaining wall, as well as the averments made in
the present public interest litigation, are unscientific.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Vasanthappa, appearing for the
petitioner, submits that the BBMP has constructed a 'U'-shaped
Storm Water Drain (SWD) with a retaining wall of 14 feet in height.
It is submitted that if a crossover/culvert is to be constructed at the
end of the 10th Cross, it would have to be constructed at ground
level, thereby necessitating a reduction in the height of the
retaining wall to 4 feet. It is contended that, considering the flow of
water during the monsoon season, the BBMP has constructed a
retaining wall of 14 feet height to facilitate the safe passage of
storm water from Devasandra Lake to Seegehalli Lake.
5.1 It is further submitted that any reduction in the height of the
retaining wall to 4 feet for the purpose of constructing a crossover
at the exit of 10th Cross would result in water flow beyond 4 feet
entering the residential area, thereby causing flooding. The learned
counsel submits that respondent No.6 apartment has an
independent access, and that the request for construction of a
crossover at the exit of 10th Cross is only for the purpose of
obtaining an additional access. It is submitted that, as per the
revenue and BBMP records, respondent No.6 does not have any
sanctioned access through the 10th Cross. It is further alleged that
the demand for construction of a crossover at the said location is
being pursued by exerting political pressure.
6. Learned advocate Mr. N.R. Jagadeeshwara, appearing for
respondent Nos.2 to 5, submits that the Storm Water Drain (SWD)
connecting Devasandra Lake and Seegehalli Lake via S.R. Layout
was developed with side retaining walls of a height ranging from 3
to 3.50 metres, in order to prevent flooding and over-spillage of
water during the monsoon season. It is submitted that, if the
crossover as sought by respondent No.6 is to be constructed, the
height of the side retaining wall would have to be reduced to 1.10
metres.
6.1 It is contended that any reduction of the retaining wall height
below 3 to 3.50 metres would result in storm water entering the
residential areas near the 10th Cross. It is further submitted that the
height of the retaining wall was determined on the basis of a
scientific study, and any reduction thereof would be scientifically
unsound and would likely result in flooding. It is also submitted that
respondent No.6 has an independent access and that the proposed
crossover is unnecessary.
7. Learned advocate Mr. Mohammed Moin Ulla, appearing for
learned advocate Mr. M. Muniraja on behalf of respondent No.6,
submits that prior to the development of the Storm Water Drain
(SWD), its width was 6 feet, and it has now been increased to 15
feet. It is contended that, in view of this increase in width, the
construction of side retaining walls with a height of 14 feet is not
only unnecessary but also unscientific. It is further submitted that
the residents of the apartment complex belonging to respondent
No.6, comprising approximately 70 families, would be deprived of
access if the proposed crossover at the exit of 10th Cross is not
permitted.
8. Having considered the submissions of the learned advocates
for the parties and upon perusal of the material on record, it is not
in dispute that the Storm Water Drain (SWD), including the side
retaining wall between Devasandra Lake and Seegehalli Lake
passing through S.R. Layout and the location in question, has been
constructed. The averments made by the petitioner, as well as
respondent Nos.2 to 5 and respondent No.6, clearly indicate that
the SWD has been constructed with side retaining walls of a height
ranging between 3 metres and 3.50 metres.
9. It is also evident that a portion of the side retaining wall,
measuring approximately 15 metres in length near respondent
No.6 apartment and at the exit of the 10th Cross Road, remains
incomplete. The reason for the incompletion appears to be the
request made by respondent No.6 for construction of a
crossover/culvert at the said location. The petitioner has objected
to the construction of the crossover, contending that if the height of
the retaining wall is reduced to accommodate the crossover, it
would result in flooding of the residential area situated along 10th
Cross Road. In contrast, respondent No.6 contends that, in view of
- 10 -
the increase in the width of the SWD from 6 feet to 15 feet, the
existing height of the retaining wall (3 to 3.50 metres) is excessive
and unnecessary.
10. Respondent Nos.2 to 5 - BBMP have submitted a technical
report, which states that in order to construct the proposed
crossover, the height of the retaining wall would need to be
reduced to 1.10 metres. The report further indicates that such a
reduction would result in flooding and over-spillage of water into the
adjoining residential area along 10th Cross Road. The technical
report categorically states that reducing the height of the side
retaining wall would be unscientific and would likely lead to
flooding.
11. The factual matrix as presented in this petition, along with the
rival contentions advanced by the parties, gives rise to two principal
issues for consideration. Firstly, whether the residents of
respondent No.6 apartment would be denied access in the event
the proposed crossover at the exit of 10th Cross is not constructed.
Secondly, whether it is feasible and appropriate to reduce the
height of the retaining wall to facilitate such construction.
- 11 -
12. In light of the rival contentions, respondent No.6 was
afforded an opportunity during the course of the hearing to produce
documents establishing the existence of access to the land on
which respondent No.6 apartment is constructed through the 10th
Cross. Learned advocate for respondent No.6 filed a memo dated
04.04.2025, enclosing a conversion order dated 27.02.2012,
photographs, and the building sanction plan issued by the BBMP.
However, the learned advocate for respondent No.6 was unable to
identify or demonstrate the existence of a road through the 10th
Cross connecting to respondent No.6 apartment.
13. Conversely, the photographs annexed to the memo confirm
the flooding of the 10th Cross, which lends support to the contention
of the petitioner. Furthermore, the scientific report submitted by
respondent Nos.2 to 5 BBMP establishes that respondent No.6
apartment has an independent access road. This evidence
effectively negates the claim of respondent No.6 that there exists a
road through the 10th Cross providing access to their apartment.
14. According to the technical report submitted by respondent
Nos.2 to 5 BBMP, the Storm Water Drain (SWD) between
Devasandra Lake and Seegehalli Lake via S.R. Layout was
developed with side retaining walls maintained at a height ranging
- 12 -
from 3 metres to 3.50 metres to prevent flooding and over-spillage
of water into the adjoining residential areas during the monsoon
season. The report states that the retaining wall height has been
consistently maintained throughout the length of the SWD between
Devasandra Lake and Seegehalli Lake. The construction of the
proposed crossover, as per the report, would necessitate a
reduction in the height of the retaining wall to 1.10 metres. Such a
reduction would give rise to two significant anomalies. Firstly, it
would render the construction of the retaining wall, maintained at a
height of 3 metres to 3.50 metres throughout the length of the
SWD, purposeless. Secondly, the flow of water exceeding the
height of 1.10 metres would enter the residential area through the
10th Cross, resulting in flooding and over-spillage of water in the
surrounding locality. This would defeat the very purpose of
constructing the SWD and retaining walls at a height exceeding 3
metres.
15. The technical report further states that, as per the building plan
approved by the Assistant Director of Town Planning, K.R. Puram,
respondent No.6 apartment has its entry and exit through 9th Cross,
S.R. Layout, Basavanapura Main Road, Bengaluru. Considering
that respondent No.6 has a planned entry and exit, the proposed
- 13 -
crossover through 10th Cross would constitute an alternative
access, which, however, comes at the risk and cost of potential
flooding and over-spillage of water towards the 10th Cross. The
construction of the side retaining wall to a height exceeding 3
metres has been identified by the technical experts as the only
viable solution to prevent flooding. In light of the foregoing and
considering all aspects, it is difficult to accept the contention of
respondent No.6 that the height of the retaining wall is unscientific.
16. Having considered the factual aspects and the documentary
evidence on record, the Court is persuaded to entertain this public
interest litigation and to issue appropriate directions.
17. Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are hereby directed to complete the
construction of the Storm Water Drain, including the side retaining
wall, to the prescribed height of 3 metres to 3.50 metres as
planned, particularly in the pending stretch of approximately 15
metres near Sripada Apartments at the exit of 10th Cross Road
connecting Basavanapura Main Road, Bengaluru.
18. Considering the importance of the issue and the imminent
approach of the monsoon season, the aforesaid exercise shall be
completed within six weeks from the date of this order.
- 14 -
19. With the above observations and direction, writ petition is
disposed of.
Sd/-
(N. V. ANJARIA)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
MV
