Case Law Details
Income Tax Layout Residents Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (Karnataka High Court)
The Karnataka High Court allowed a writ petition filed by the Income Tax Layout Residents seeking removal of encroachments on the road margin and civic amenity site and dismissed a connected writ petition challenging the survey sketch prepared by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), now the Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA). The survey had been conducted pursuant to an earlier High Court order and found that certain respondents had encroached upon the road margin and part of the civic amenity site. The petitioner in the second writ petition sought to set aside the survey on the ground that no proper opportunity of hearing had been provided during the survey process.
The Court noted that the alleged encroached land formed part of 12 guntas of land that had been the subject matter of earlier civil proceedings, including a suit for declaration, a first appeal, and a Special Leave Petition. All those proceedings had been decided against the petitioner claiming ownership, thereby negating any right, title, or interest over the land.
The petitioner relied on dismissal of two civil suits filed by individual residents. However, the Court observed that those suits were dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to adduce evidence or argue their cases and therefore did not establish any rights over the property. The Court also noted that the land was treated by the BBMP/GBA as part of the road margin and civic amenity site and that the authority maintained the property as public land.
Referring to an earlier order directing identification of the property before removal of encroachments, the Court observed that the earlier order had been passed without the benefit of the subsequent proceedings conclusively determining that the petitioner had no rights over the disputed land. Consequently, the Court found no fault with the survey conducted by the BBMP and the Bengaluru Development Authority. Holding that any encroachments identified in the survey were liable to be removed, the Court allowed the residents’ writ petition, dismissed the land claimant’s writ petition, and directed the GBA to remove the encroachments from the road margin and civic amenity sites within eight weeks.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
W.P.No.43740/2016 has been filed with the following prayers:
“a) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent No.1 and 4 to take steps to remove the encroachment made by the respondent 5 to 7 in the road margin and civic amenity siteas per Annexure-C.
b) Issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”
2. W.P.No.2490/2026 has been filed with the following prayers:
“(i) quashing the survey sketch and the report dated 09.04.2015 submitted by the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and the Bangalore Development Authority as per Annexure-C to the writ petition by issue of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order and direction;
(ii) directing the Respondents to pay to Petitioner costs of this proceedings, and
(iii) awarding to the Petitioner such other additional and alternative reliefs that may be found necessary under the circumstances of the case.”
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status in W.P.No.43740/2016.
4. Annexure-‘C’ referred to in both the writ petitions pertains to the sketch of the survey conducted by the then Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (for short, ‘the BBMP’) now, the Greater Bengaluru Authority (for short, ‘the GBA’) pursuant to the orders of this Court in W.P.Nos.51787-51789 of 2014 (BDA), wherein it has been found that respondent Nos.5 to 7 in W.P.No.43740/2016 have encroached upon the road margin and a portion of the site reserved for civic amenities.
5. The petitioner in W.P.No.43740/2016 wants the alleged encroachment is to be removed. The petitioner in W.P.No.2490/2026 has sought for setting aside the said survey on the ground that a proper opportunity of being heard at the time of conduct of the survey was not accorded to the petitioner therein.
6. Admittedly, the alleged encroachment as per Annexure-‘C’ to the writ petitions are part of 12 Guntas of land which were subject matter of O.S.No.5888/1993, RFA No.299/2008 (DEC) and SLP No.2914/2023. The said original suit, first appeal and the Special Leave Petition were preferred by the petitioner in W.P.No.2490/2026 in respect of the said 12 Guntas of the land.
7. S.No.5888/1993 was a suit for declaration, wherein the petitioner in W.P.No.2490/2026 sought for a prayer to declare him as the owner of the said 12 Guntas of the land. The trial Court, having negatived the contentions of the plaintiff therein, has dismissed the original suit. The same was appealed against in RFA No.299/2008 (DEC) which also came to be dismissed and the SLP No.2914/2023 preferred against the said RFA also came to be dismissed, thereby the right of the petitioner in W.P.No.2490/2026 over the land concerned has been negatived. Thus, it has to be concluded that the petitioner in W.P.No.2490/2026 has no right, title or interest of any nature whatsoever in respect of the land, which is alleged to have been encroached upon, as reflected in the survey sketch at Annexure–‘C’ to the writ petitions.
8. It is contented by the petitioner in W.P.No.2490/2026 that some of the individual residents of Income Tax Layout preferred O.S.No.8431/2005 and O.S.No.8417/2005 against the petitioner in W.P.No.2490/2026 wherein, they prayed that the petitioner in W.P.No.2490/2026 be restrained from putting up certain constructions on the property concerned and the said suits also have been dismissed. However, a perusal of the judgment passed in the said original suits shows that in O.S.No.8431/2005, the plaintiff therein did not adduce any evidence nor she argued the case and for that reason, the suit filed by her has been dismissed. Similarly, in O.S.No.8417/2005, the plaintiff therein did not argue the case. Consequently, the suit came to be dismissed. The said suits have been filed by third parties and the property is a public property maintained by the BBMP / GBA. The pleadings shows that the BBMP / GBA considers the property to be part of the road margin and civic amenities sites. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent – BBMP / GBA also submits that the said property belongs to the BBMP / GBA.
9. The petitioner in W.P.No.2490/2026 had filed W.P.Nos.51787-51789 of 2014 (BDA), wherein they had questioned the action of the BBMP / GBA in trying to remove the alleged encroachment and this Court had passed the following order:
“However, for the present, the right of petitioner No.1 and the right of respondent No.1 shall be dealt specifically before the appropriate forum. Respondents – Bangalore Development Authority and Bruhat Bengalure Mahanagara Palike to identify the property available to the parties and thereafter to proceed. Identification to be conducted before the parties. Till such identification process is completed, Respondents – Bangalore Development Authority and Bruhat Bengalure Mahanagara Palike shall not proceed to disturb the rights of the petitioners. With the above clarification, the petitions are disposed of.“
10. At the time of disposing of W.P.Nos.51787-51789 of 2014 (BDA), this Court did not have the benefit of the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in respect of the ownership of the property concerned. Admittedly, the property pertains to 12 Guntas of land, which was subject matter of the original suit, first appeal and the Special Leave Petition as mentioned above and presently, it has been held that the petitioner in W.P.No.2490/2026 has no right, title or interest over the property concerned. Under the circumstances, no fault can be made out from the survey conducted by the BBMP / the Bengaluru Development Authority (for short, ‘the BDA’) vide Annexure-‘C’ to the writ petitions. If there are any encroachments by the petitioner in W.P.No.2490/2026, the same is liable to be removed.
11. Hence, the following:
ORDER
i. W. P.No.43740/2016 is hereby allowed.
ii. W. P.No.2490/2026 is hereby dismissed.
iii. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 (GBA) in W.P.No.43740/2016 are directed to take necessary steps to remove the encroachment made in the road margin and civic amenities sites as per Annexure-‘C’ to the writ petitions, within a period of eight (08) weeks from today.
Author Bio
