IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI WRIT PETITION NOS.61887-61891/2016 & 61892-895/2016 (LB - RES) BETWEEN M/S. KRISTAL GROUP NO.1, 4TH CROSS, 29TH MAIN, BTM LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 076, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SMT. LATHA NAMBOOTHIRI. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. S. SHAKER SHETTY ADVOCATE) AND ANEKAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY "ANNA", NO.430, HENNAGARA GATE, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 099. REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S. G. PANDIT ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. M. MOHAN KUMAR ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING APPLICANT IN IA.1/17) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED:11.11.2016 VIDE ANNEX-L, ACCORDING TO LAW ETC. Date of order :11.07.2017 in W.P. Nos.61887-61891/2016 & 61892-895/2016 M/s. Kristal Group vs. Anekal Development Authority . 2/7 THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The petitioner – M/s. Kristal Group which has developed a residential Layout in Sy.Nos. 79, 80, 81, 82/1, 82/2, 82/4, 82/5, 83/5, measuring 1 acre 6 guntas situated in Yamare Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, has presented this petition. 2. By the impugned order Annexure-L, dated 11.11.2016, Anekal Planning Authority has issued certain directions. The operative portion of the order is quoted below for reference. “ Since M/s. Kristal Group have transferred the road area in the layout to Anekal Planning Authority vide Registered Document No.SRJ- 1-00208-201-12 dated 19.04.2011 in the Office of the Senior Sub-Registrar, Sarjapura, the said roads have become public roads. In the Preliminary Certificate No. BMRDA: Date of order :11.07.2017 in W.P. Nos.61887-61891/2016 & 61892-895/2016 M/s. Kristal Group vs. Anekal Development Authority . 3/7 AaYoPra:LAO:31.4.05 dated 20.04.2011, in the Condition No.11, it is mentioned that “ the roads in the layout should not obstruct the connection to the surrounding lands”. Since this condition has been violated, Sri. H.R. Krishnappa, Deputy Director (in-charge), Urban and Rural Planning, has been authorized to take action immediately to clear the compound wall with the assistance of the Police Department and make provision for the public to commute freely.” 3. Upon issuance of notices, the respondent- Anekal Development Authority has now filed statement of objections and para – 6 of the statement of objections is quoted below for reference: “ The Respondent with regard to the averments made in the Writ Petition submits that, as stated by the Petitioner in Paragraph (1) of the Writ Petition, it is true that initially, BMRDA had approved the Plan as per Annexure-A. Thereafter, on the Date of order :11.07.2017 in W.P. Nos.61887-61891/2016 & 61892-895/2016 M/s. Kristal Group vs. Anekal Development Authority . 4/7 application of the Petitioner, modified plan was approved as per Annexure-B. The dispute is mainly with regard to the road, which the Petitioner has to keep open for general public. The Petitioner cannot close the gate for ingress and egress of the public. The averments made in paragraphs (3) and (4) of the petition to the effect that the Petitioner has not contravened any of the condition of the sanctioned plan is not correct. The terms of the sanctioned plan, contained a condition that the Petitioner shall not restrict the public road. But, the Petitioner has blocked the road by closing the gate. With regard to the averment made in paragraph (5) of the writ petition, it is submitted that the Petitioner, as per the orders of this Hon’ble Court, ought to have submitted its reply within 10 days from 16/9/2016. But the Petitioner has replied on 13/10/2016. Thereafter, notice dated:2/11/2016 was issued for personal hearing of the Petitioner. But the Petitioner failed to appear before the Respondent Date of order :11.07.2017 in W.P. Nos.61887-61891/2016 & 61892-895/2016 M/s. Kristal Group vs. Anekal Development Authority . 5/7 Authority on 8/11/2016. The impugned ordered is passed on 8/11/2016. As the condition No.11 in the approved plan dated:20/4/2011 has been violated by the Petitioner, the Petitioner was directed to demolish the compound wall and to make free access to the neighbouring land owners. It is not the entire compound wall, but wherever the road is shown in the plan, those roads are to be kept open for free movement of neighbouring land owners. In the preamble portion of the order, by inadvertence, instead of Yamare village, it is noted as Sompura Village. But, in the order portion, it is specifically mentioned referring to the layout plan sanction dated 20/4/2011.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.S.Shaker Shetty, submitted that even though the public road in the Layout is encroached by the petitioner, they have not prohibited the free access of the public. But since the impugned order states that the entire compound wall Date of order :11.07.2017 in W.P. Nos.61887-61891/2016 & 61892-895/2016 M/s. Kristal Group vs. Anekal Development Authority . 6/7 would be demolished with the police help, they were required to approach this court by way of present petition. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Anekal Planning Authority Mr.S.G.Pandit submits that the compound wall constructed to the extent of prohibiting the entry and exit of the public from such public roads in the Layout, as such part of the compound wall is required to be removed. As per the sanction plan the petitioner- Developer cannot prohibit the entry and exit of the public on such public roads . He also pointed out that instead of Sompura village, it should have been Yamare village, Sarjapur in the impugned order. This position is clarified in para – 6 of the Statement of Objections quoted above. 6. In view of the aforesaid, it is directed that unless the petitioner-Developer itself removes the part of the compound wall from the public road in question as per the said approved Layout plan within a period of 15 days from Date of order :11.07.2017 in W.P. Nos.61887-61891/2016 & 61892-895/2016 M/s. Kristal Group vs. Anekal Development Authority . 7/7 today for allowing the free entry and exit, ingress and aggress on such public roads of the approved Layout plan, the respondent – Anekal Planning Authority is at liberty to remove such compound wall to the requisite extent at the cost of the petitioner-Developer. 7. With these observations, these petitions stand disposed of. In view of the petitions being disposed of, I.A.1/17 for impleadment is rejected. Sd/- JUDGE Msu