In the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE Dated this the 10th day of July, 2013 Before THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH Writ Petition 22773 / 2013 (KLR) Between 1 Ramesh R, 41 yrs S/o T Rangappa R/a # 62/2, 5th Cross Opp: Basaveshwara Temple Yemalur Village & Post Bangalore 37 2 K Srinivas S/o late T Krishnappa 38 yrs, R/a # 345 Next to Basaveshwara Temple Yemalur Village & Post Bangalore Petitioners (By Sri P Mahesha, Adv.) And 1 Tahsildar Bangalore East Taluk Kandaya Bhavan, K G Road Bangalore 2 Deputy Commissioner Bangalore City 2 Kandaya Bhavan K G Road, Bangalore 3 August Venture Pvt Ltd Real Easte, Builder & Developer # 17/1, Campbell Road Austen Town, Bangalore By its Managing Director Sri Thomas T John Respondents (By Smt M C Nagashree, GP for R1-2; DSK Legal, Adv. For R3) Writ Petition is filed under Art.226/227 of the Constitution praying to direct R1-2 to take action against R3 restraining him from forming any road by closing the canal in the protected valley area of Amane Bellandur Khane Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East. Petition coming on for hearing this day, the Court made the following: ORDER Petitioners are said to be owners of property in Sy.No.109 situate at Amane Bellandur Khane Village, Vartur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk claiming to be ancestral property and the revenue entries stand in their name. This land is made available for residential purpose under the Comprehensive Development Plan and also for industrial purpose and Sy.No.81 of the said Village as valley. 3 According to the petitioners, Sy.No.81 of Amane Bellandur Khane Village is a sensitive zone since there is a canal existing i.e., raja kaluve. The entire area is shown in green color as a stream/canal which has to be protected and it is the main source of water feeding to Bellandur lake. The stream which is running in Sy.No.81, the canal and the valley has to be protected in stead, it is alleged that the 3rd respondent has encroached upon the valley thereby blocking the very stream/raja kaluve and causing nuisance to the property of the petitioners as well as there will be no other alternate source to reach the feeder canal to Bellandur Tank. Hence, petitioners are before this Court to protect the valley and the raja kaluve in Sy.No.81. Heard the counsel representing the petitioners, 3rd respondent and the Government Pleader. The Tahsildar, Bangalore East Taluk is present along with the sketch demonstrating how the valley and the raja kaluve runs through. A road is also shown in Sy.No.81 however, the same has been disputed by the 4 petitioner's counsel who submits that there is no road at all and that Sy.No.81 is earmarked for raja kaluve and there is encroachment. On such direction being issued by this Court earlier, the Tahsildar, Bangalore East Taluk has taken a decision to remove the encroachment. It appears, as per the village map this raja kaluve/stream appears to be one chain distance and as per the survey measurement, it is equivalent to 30 feet. Even in the Comprehensive Development Plan, a road is shown. However, in view of the water being flown in the raja kaluve, from a hygienic point of view and also to maintain this canal (raja kaluve), it would be proposed to maintain the canal up to 33 ft. as is available and if there is any encroachment, to remove the same to make it convenient for free flow of water to Bellandur Tank and, by putting columns and slabs on the valley/canal throughout, it could be made use of as a connecting road from that area much less it would not cause nuisance to anybody. The 3rd respondent has come out with a proposal that it would bear the expenses to put the construction to the extent which comes within the 5 area adjacent to the canal. If that is the case, the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner is directed to grant permission as per S.68 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act to put up concrete slabs as well as columns to protect the valley/canal for free flow of water so that the upper surface could be used as a connecting road. This could also be pursued by the 3rd respondent and other neighbors to see that the entire stretch of the canal could be made use of as a road. In view of the undertaking given by the 3rd respondent, it is for the Tahsildar of the area to direct to undertake the work as observed above, after removing the encroachment wherever it is. The work be carried out expeditiously. Petition is disposed of SD/- Judge an.

Load more