RADIANT BUILDERS Vs. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court questioning the correctness and legality of the order dtd. 17/1/2015 at Annexure-M wherein the petitioner is directed to remove the temporary gate and iron sheet closing the road in Sy.No.40/8 and to make way for the public.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel Sri.Radhanandan.B.S., for petitioner and learned counsel Sri.Aravind M. Neglur for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the writ petition papers.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that one Sri.A.M.Badrinath and his brothers are the absolute owners of Sy.40/8 measuring 0.23 guntas situated at Kodichikkannahalli village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, offered the property for joint venture in terms of Joint Development Agreement dtd. 15/4/2010. In pursuance to the Joint Development Agreement, the petitioner constructed residential apartment. One Sri Y. Gopalakrishna had purchased the eastern side of the property of the petition schedule property from one Sri Y.Lakshmaiah. It is submitted that said Sri Y.Gopalakrishna had filed O.S.No.2852/2013 claiming access through the petition schedule property. Apart from filing the suit, the vendor of Gopalakrishna had also filed complaint before the respondent-Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) on 31/12/2015, against the petitioner to remove the obstruction and to make way for the public. Learned counsel would contend that Annexure-M, order dtd. 17/1/2015 was passed directing the petitioner to remove the gate and iron sheet and to make way to the public, without affording any opportunity to the petitioner. Learned counsel would submit that the complainants have no right of access through the property of the petitioner. It is submitted that the impugned order is passed without applying mind, only at the instance of the complainant. Further, learned counsel would also submit that the suit in O.S.No.2852/2013 filed by Sri Y.Gopalakrishna was dismissed wherein he had sought for access through the through schedule property. When the civil suit itself is dismissed, the respondent-BBMP could not have passed the impugned order. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petition.