SRIRAMEGOWDA Vs. HOSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition has been filed as a cause in public interest. The sole Petitioner is a former Corporator. He has also held the position of Deputy Mayor. The assertion made in the instant, writ petition is, that the Respondent, No. 6, i.e., Sri Banashankari Temple (hereinafter referred to as the 'Temple') has unauthorisedly and Illegally raised permanent construction over an existing road. It is the submission of the Petitioner, that the construction raised by the Temple has resulted in traffic jams, inasmuch as. the busy road abutting the Temple has now a bottleneck. In order to substantiate the assertions made In the writ petition, a site plan (Annexure-A) was brought, to our notice In order to demonstrate the sudden diversion in the road caused as a result of the encroachment made by the Temple.

(2.) Consequent upon the issuance of notice in this case, the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (now 'Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike' hereinafter referred to as the 'BBMP'), arrayed as Respondent No. 2, has filed a statement of objections, wherein in paragraph 2 it is sought to be asserted as under; 2. The Petitioner has filed the Petition contending that the 6th Respondent is constructing the Rqjagopura and also a compound wall encroaching the Kanakapura Road. It is contended that, the encroachment of Public Road has resulted in traffic jams and affected the movement of traffic, as the same is a busy Road. The 6th Respondent Temple is a Muzrai Temple managed and administered by the Slate Government. The 6th Respondent started construction of the compound wall and it is true that the 6th Respondent put up construction without obtaining Sanctioned Plan from this Respondent. However, the state Government need not obtain sanctioned plan as they are exempted under Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. It was also noticed that the Public Road had been utilized by constructing the 'compound wall In this writ petition this Hon'ble Conn has directed the authorities to ensure that the 6th Respondent, do not: proceed with further constructiori of Rqjagopura, The authorities have obeyed the same.

(3.) It is in the aforesaid circumstances, that the onus stands shifted to Respondent No. 6, so as to establish, that the Temple has not encroached over the road line. In order to establish its claim over the land where construction has been raised, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 6 invited our attention to ''record of rights and pahani'' (hereinafter referred to as 'RTC'). The first and foremost, our attention has been drawn to Annexure-Rl pertaining to survey No. 71/2 (renumbered consequent upon sub-division) wherein, Sri Banashankari Temple has been entered in column No. 9. Column No. 9 bears the heading ''name of khatedar or occupant, father's name and address.'' For the same purpose, Annexure-R2 is RTC pertaining to survey No. 72 wherein, again Sri Banashankaramma Temple has been entered in column No. 9. Finally, reference has been made to Annexure-R3, i.e. RTC for survey No. 71/5 (re-numbered consequent upon sub-division) to the same effect. Based on the aforesaid RTC's, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 6, that construction has been raised over the land which is in the ownership of Respondent No. 6. it is therefore sought to be asserted, that Respondent No. 6 cannot be accused to have trespassed over the road.