R. USHA Vs. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants, being aggrieved by the order dated 13.8.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 36179/2014, have preferred this appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the said order.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case of the appellants, as averred in the writ appeal, are that they are the lawful owners of the property bearing site No. 11, katha No. 2/3 measuring East -West 30 ft. and North -South 38 ft. situated in Nayandanahalli village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, in ward No. 131 (old No. 39) of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagarapa Palike (for short 'the BBMP'). The 1st respondent -BBMP attempted to form public road over the property of the appellants in the year 1998 and hence, the appellants filed O.S. No. 9794/1998 on the file of the City Civil Court at Bengaluru seeking permanent injunction to restrain the defendants therein from forming any road in and over the suit schedule property. After contest, the suit was decreed on 1.10.2005. In spite of the said decree and grant of permanent injunction, the 1st respondent -BBMP and its staff, taking advantage of absence of the appellants, formed public road in and over the site in question and the authorities of BWSSB laid underground drainage and water pipes in the said site. The site/land of the appellants never been acquired by the authorities by following due process of law and the appellants had been deprived of compensation. The appellants have filed Execution No. 53/2007 before the City Civil Court at Bengaluru against 1st respondent -BBMP and its staff for disobedience of the judgment and decree passed in the aforesaid suit and same is still pending.

(3.) IT is further case of the appellants that, they submitted representation dated 16.3.2012 to the 1st respondent -BBMP as per Annexure -F and sought for allotment of a piece of land or grant of monetary compensation for utilizing their site for formation of the road. General Power of Attorney Holder of the appellants received an endorsement dated 28.9.2012 as per Annexure -H from the BBMP intimating that Katha certificate in respect of the property in question cannot be issued as road had already been formed over the said property. The appellants had also produced extract of the file noting as per Annexure -J said to have been maintained in the office of the 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent issued letter dated 8.7.2014, as per Annexure -K, to General Power of Attorney Holder of the appellants intimating that, upon conducting spot inspection of the property in question, it had been found that a road had been formed in and over the property of the appellants. The appellants were neither given an alternative site nor they were paid compensation for having formed a road on their property. The appellants, therefore, filed W.P. No. 36179/2014, wherein the learned Single Judge has passed impugned order. Hence, the present appeal.