- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:634 WP No. 22868 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 22868 OF 2024 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. J. VIJAYAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O R JAYACHANDRA, 3/11,MARAPPA STREET 1 SURAMPATTI, ERODE TAMIL NADU-538009. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ABHINAV RAMANAND A., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBANDEVELOPMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE METROPOLITAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (BMRDA) NO.1, ALI ASGAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560052. 3. THE MEMBER SECRETARY SATELLITE TOWN RING ROAD PLANNING AUTHORITY, (STRRPA) NO.1, ALI ASGAR ROAD, BENGALURU -560 052 4. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MUGALURU GRAMA, Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:634 WP No. 22868 of 2024 SARJAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU 562125. 5. ANEKAL PLANNING AUTHORITY (ANEKAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY) 430, ANNA BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR, HENNAGARA GATE, NEAR CHANDAPURA, BENGALURU 560099 REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY. 6. M/S. PSR ICON CORAL PLOT OWNERS' ASSOCIATION THINDLU VILLAGE, SARJAPURA, BENGALURU 562 125 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT REGISTERED PLOT OWNERSHIP ACT 1972 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SPOORTHI.V., HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. YOGESH D.NAIK., ADVOCATE FOR R-2, 3 AND 5; R-4 AND R-5 SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO 5 TO DEMOLISH THE ILLEGAL COMPOUND WALL PUT UP ADJACENT TO THE SOUTH OF THE PETITIONERS LAND i.e., PROERTY BEARING SY.NO. 70/5, (70/4) OLD Sy.No. 70/2, MEASURING AN EXTENT OF 31 GUNTAS AND 0.08 GUNTAS KHARAB LAND SITUATED AT GUDIGATTANAHALLI VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT ON THE PERIPHERY/ BOUNDARY OF THE LAYOUT IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF PSR ICON CORAL IN SURVEY NOS. 60/1 AND 60/3 OF THINDLU VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBALI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU AS SHOWN IN THE SKETCH AT ANNEXURE-D TO THE WRIT PETITION AND THEREBY DIRECT THE R-1 TO 5 TO RESTORE THE PETITIONERS ACCESS TO THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:634 WP No. 22868 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. A prayer in this writ petition is for issuance of a mandamus to direct respondents 1 to 5 to demolish a compound wall which has been put up adjacent to the south of the petitioner’s land in Sy.No.70/5 (70/4), old Sy.No.70/2 measuring an extent of 31 guntas and 0.08 guntas of kharab situated at Gudigattanahalli Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru District. 2. It is stated that this compound wall is on the peripheral boundary of the layout in the name and style of “PSR ICON CORAL” formed in Sy.Nos.60/1 and 60/3 of Thindlu Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru, as indicated in the sketch at Annexure-E. 3. Learned counsel appearing for respondents 2, 3 and 5 submits that the approval granted to the 6th respondent was as per Annexure-C1, in which a specific clause to the following effect was imposed while granting permission: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:634 WP No. 22868 of 2024 “«£Áå¸ÀzÀ°è£À gÀ¸ÉÛUÀ½AzÀ CPÀÌ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ½UÉ EgÀĪÀ ¸ÀA¥ÀPÀðªÀ£ÀÄß AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÁgÀtPÀÆÌ ¤§ðA¢¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÝ®è.” 4. Learned counsel therefore submits that the 6th respondent would have no authority in law to erect a compound wall and prevent the use of the road by the neighbouring land owners. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also places on record a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.61/2023 disposed of on 24.11.2023 in which the Division Bench has affirmed the decision of a Co- ordinate Bench which was to the effect that the road which has been relinquished to the authority cannot be prevented to be used on the ground that there was a private layout and roads formed therein cannot be a thorough fare. 6. In this case, apart from the above decisions, the fact that the condition specifically imposed in respect of the work order issued to respondent No.6, would leave no room for doubt that the roads, which have been formed in the layout by the 6th respondent as owe the approval of the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:634 WP No. 22868 of 2024 authorities, cannot be blocked by erection of a compound wall. In other words, the developer of a layout or its subsequent owners cannot contend that the roads that have been laid out in their layout are exclusive and access to those roads is restricted only to the residents of the layout formed by them. 7. In that view of the matter, it would be appropriate to direct the concerned authority to demolish the compound wall forthwith and ensure that condition No.11 imposed in the approval is adhered to. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the Anekal Planning Authority submits that the roads which have been relinquished have been handed over to the 4th respondent and the 4th respondent would have to implement the direction. 9. In my view, since it is in the public interest that the roads been relinquished to the authorities are sought to be prevented to be used by the public, not only the 4th respondent, but every other authority concerned shall also act in aid of the 4th respondent and ensure that the compound wall erected by the 6th respondent as indicated - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:634 WP No. 22868 of 2024 in the sketch at Annexure-E shall be demolished forthwith. The exercise of demolition shall be undertaken and completed within a period of one month from today and the compliance report shall be filed before this Court on or before 10.02.2025. 10. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 78