C. VINAY KUMAR S/O RAMBABU Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged an order passed by respondent No.1 dated 18.08.2021 (Annexure-Q), by which the respondent No.1 directed the petitioner to vacate the road margin area that was relinquished in favour of City Municipal Council where the petitioner had constructed a water tank. Respondent No.1 also directed the petitioner to remove a shed constructed by the petitioner in the area reserved for a park.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent No.1 has failed to follow the prescribed procedure before directing the water tank and the shed to be vacated. He contended that the survey conducted by the Revenue Surveyor indicated that there was a deficit of 8 guntas in the land owned by the petitioner. Hence, the question of encroaching into the road margin area does not arise.

(3.) Learned counseI for the caveator, on the other hand, submitted that this Writ Petition is not maintainabIe in view of an aIternate remedy avaiIabIe under the Karnataka MunicipaIities Act, 1964 (henceforth referred to as '1964 Act'). He aIso contended that once the petitioner had reIinquished the area reserved for a road, he cannot undertake any deveIopment activity in the said area. He aIso contended that since the petitioner had bIocked the road , he couId not undertake deveIopment in the adjacent Iand and the MunicipaI CounciI had canceIIed the Iicense to form a Iayout in the Iand as it was not deveIoped within a period of two years.