T. MURTHY S/O LATE THIMANNA AND SRI BASAVARAJU S/O MUNISIDDAPPA Vs. THE MUNICIPAL DIRECTOR, DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPALITY AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these two writ petitions, the Petitioners have sought for a direction, directing the Respondents to vacate the public road and park and mark access to the public road available from site Nos. 6 to 46 in property Assessment No. 855/ABC situated at Venkateshwar Nagar, Kadur, in the interest of justice and equity.

(2.) THE grievance of the Petitioners at the outset is that these two Petitioners are residents of Kadur Town and they are the regular tax payees. The property bearing Municipal No. 855/A, B, and C measuring 1 acre, 36 guntas and 1.00 acre situated at Kadur belonged to one N. Siddaramappa. He intended to form private layout in the said land and accordingly obtained necessary sanction plan from the office of the Assistant Town Planning Co -Ordinator, District Planning Cell, Chikkamagalur, on 50.8.1995 for forming a residential layout. Out of the said lands, 55 sites were formed, out of which, 25 sites were sold and remaining 30 sites were yet to be sold and an area of 30 ft. public road and 300 ft. x 220 ft. Park were marked, providing facilities to the residents of the said layout and others. When things stood thus, Siddaramappa, the owner of the private layout in collusion with the second Respondent has fenced the boundaries of the public road and park blocking access to the public road and dumped the timbers on the 30 ft. public road from site Nos. 6 to 46 in the schedule property referred to above. Therefore, the Petitioners were constrained to submit a detailed representation to the Respondents 1 to 4. The second Respondent in turn has passed the order for giving easy access to the public road to the residents of the layout but the Respondents 1, 3 and 4 have not taken any action to restore the public road and park portion alleged to have been marked in the layout. In spite of giving detailed representation to the Respondents, they have not taken any steps within the reasonable time. Therefore, in view of inaction on the part of the Respondents in not considering the representation given by the Petitioners, they are constrained to redress their grievance by presenting these two writ petitions.

(3.) AFTER careful perusal of the prayer sought in these writ petitions, what would emerge is that, the Petitioners have submitted the representation and the said representation has been considered partly by the second Respondent. The Respondents 1, 3 and 4 have neither considered the representation nor taken any decision to restore the portion of the park alleged to have been reserved in the layout formed.