LAWS(KAR)-2015-3-154

RAMANATH K.T. Vs. L. SATHYANARAYANA AND ORS.

Decided On March 20, 2015
Ramanath K.T. Appellant
V/S
L. Sathyanarayana And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) THE appellant was the defendant before the Trial Court who had purchased a site through a House Building Co -operative Society which had formed a layout and pursuant to such allotment, he was put in possession and had constructed a house. It was the case of Respondent No. 1 who was the plaintiff before the Trial Court that according to the sanctioned plan of the layout, there is a 30 feet road along with a culvert in existence, on the Southern side of the defendant's property. However, it was the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had encroached upon the road and culvert to an extent of 2' x 20' and had constructed his house, which no doubt has been conveyed to him under a sale deed. The plaintiffs case was that by virtue of such encroachment, the width of the road has been substantially reduced and has imposed an impediment for free movement not only to the plaintiff, but all persons living in the locality and since the authorities had not taken any action in this regard, as a public spirited citizen and in his own interest, had filed a suit seeking appropriate reliefs. The plaintiff had arrayed the State though the Housing & Urban Development Department as Defendant No. 1, the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) as Defendant No. 2, the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) as Defendant No. 3 and the House Building Society which has formed the layout as Defendant No. 4. Though the said parties had entered appearance through counsel, there were no pleadings filed and they had not contested the suit. However, Defendant No. 5 had filed his pleadings and had contested the suit. Ultimately, the court below having come to a conclusion that there was indeed encroachment of the road to the extent of 2' x 20', has decreed the suit. It is that which is under challenge in the present appeal.

(3.) HOWEVER , it is found from the provisions of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, that there are ample provisions under which the local authority is required to take action in respect of such encroachment of public property and it is appropriate if such action is initiated in the first instance. Therefore, in order to ensure that there is complete justice and there is no unfair deprivation of property, even if there is any alleged encroachment, without a prior enquiry with reference to the official documents, it would be premature to hold that there is indeed any such encroachment.