- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8781 WP No. 2546 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 2546 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. DINESH M BOHRA S/O MOHANLAL AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, NEELAM TEXTILE M G ROAD, MUDIGERE CITY AND POST, MUDIGERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577132 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT CHIKKAMAGALURU-577101 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHIKKAMAGALURU DIVISION CHIKKAMAGALURU-577101 3. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYATH CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577101 4. EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH MUDIGERE TALUK, MUDIGERE CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577132 5. THE TAHSILDAR MUDIGERE TALUK Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8781 WP No. 2546 of 2025 MUDIGERE CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577132 6. THE CHIEF OFFICER TOWN PANCHAYATH MUDIGERE CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577132 7. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER HALE MUDIGERE GRAM PANCHYAATH MUDIGERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577132 8. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MUDIGERE POLICE STATION CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577132 9. THE DISTRICT HEALTH OFFICER PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT, K M ROAD CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577101 10. SMT PRIYANKA AGE MAJOR HUSBAND NAME NOT KNOWN WORKING AS A ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, MGM TALUK AND PUBLIC HOSPITAL MUDIGERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577101 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.G.BHANUPRAKASH, AAG FOR SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA., AGA FOR R-1, 2, 5, 8 & 9; SRI. M.V.RAMESH ROIS, FOR R-10; SRI. ASHOK N.NAYAK., ADVOCATE FOR R-3, 4 & 7) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO 9 AUTHORITIES TO CONSIDER PETITIONERS REPRESENTATION EFFECTIVELY MADE ON 24.01.2025 FOR TAKING NECESSARY IMMEDIATE ACTION FOR CLEAR THE EXISTING PUBLIC ROAD WHICH HAS BEEN BLOCKED BY THE ADMINSTRATIVE OFFICER, MGM GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL HALE - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8781 WP No. 2546 of 2025 MUDIGERE / R-10 AT LAND BEARING SY.NO.46 OF MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A TO H, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. The prayer in this writ petition is to direct respondent Nos.1 to 9 to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 24.01.2025 whereby the petitioner had requested for taking immediate action to clear the existing public road, which has been blocked by the Administrative Officer, MGM Government Hospital, Hale Mudigere (the 10th respondent). 2. In the said representation, the petitioner basically contended that, a public road was indicated in the layout plan which was the main access to his layout and, therefore, the Hospital Authorities i.e., the 10th respondent could not have blocked that particular portion, which had been earmarked as a road. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8781 WP No. 2546 of 2025 3. Learned AAG appearing on behalf of the respondents however contended that, the area earmarked as road was the property of the hospital and the Authority which sanctioned the plan had no right to indicate it as a public road. He submitted that, no direction can be issued to ensure the formation of a road on Government property, when the Government had serious reservations about the claim. 4. He also submits that, the Hospital Authorities in order to safeguard their property have already constructed a compound wall and, therefore, there is no question of removing the compound wall to facilitate the formation of a road for the benefit of the petitioner and his layout. 5. It is not in dispute that, in the layout plan, the area in dispute has been indicated as a road and it is also not in dispute that this is the road, which has access to the petitioner's layout. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8781 WP No. 2546 of 2025 6. Learned AAG is also right in submitting that, apart from this particular road, there are two other access roads to the layout and, therefore, it cannot be argued that the 9 meter road shown in the plan is the only means of access. 7. Be that as it may, having regard to the fact that the Planning Authority has indicated that there is an existing 9 meter road, which the Government now contends is a part of the property of the hospital, in the larger interest of justice and equity, it would be appropriate to direct the Government to consider conveying this property for the purpose of formation of a 9 meter road, as indicated in the layout plan as Annexure – M, provided the petitioner agrees to pay the market value of the said property. 8. This observation is being made having regard to the fact that a layout has been formed with the expectation that there was a 9 meter road - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8781 WP No. 2546 of 2025 earmarked in the layout plan itself, for having access to the layout. 9. If the Government agrees to convey the property, it is obvious that this particular portion will be earmarked as a road and, which essentially be used only by the public and no private benefit can be gained by the petitioner from the formation of the said road. 10. In am therefore of the view that, it would be appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to give a representation to the 1st respondent to consider granting the area, in which the 9 meter road is earmarked in the layout plan as Annexure – M, subject to the petitioner agreeing to pay the market value for this extent. 11. If the Deputy Commissioner accord such permission, it is needless to state that the Hospital Authorities will have to take necessary action to ensure that - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8781 WP No. 2546 of 2025 there is a road as indicated in the plan. If not, the Hospital Authorities can continue to maintain the compound wall. 12. It is also open for the petitioner to give additional representation to the Deputy Commissioner highlighting the factors which would be relevant for the purpose of ensuring that a road is formed as indicated in the layout plan. 13. This exercise shall be undertaken and completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 14. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. SD/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE GSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6