1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21 ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2016 PRESENT THE HON BLE MR. SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B. WRIT APPEAL NOs.3384-3387 OF 2016 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. CLASSIC ORCHARDS PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION "CLASSIC ORCHARDS" LAYOUT, SOS VILLAGE POST, BEHIND MEENAKSHI, SUNDARESHWARA TEMPLE, BANGALORE-560 076, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, MR. SUBBU HEGDE. 2. K.R. SUDARSHAN RAO S/O LATE K. RAMACHANDRA RAO AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT 174, CLASSIC ORCHARDS, BANGALORE-560 076. 3. VISHWESHWARA UPADHYAYA S/O. K. SUBRAMANYA UPADHYAYA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
2 RESIDING AT NO.83, CLASSIC ORCHARDS, BANGALORE-560 076. 4. VIVEK.C S/O. CHOCKALINGAM M AGED 28 YEARS, ADDRESS: 218 D, CLASSIC ORCHARDS, BANGALORE-560 076.... APPELLANTS (BY SRI S.VIJAY SHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SRI H SRINIVAS RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPT., VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (BBMP) REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, N.R. SQUARE, AVENUE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 002. 3. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (BDA) BY ITS COMMISSIONER T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARAPARK WEST,
3 BANGALORE-560 021. 4. M/s AMALGAMATED PROPERTY DEVELOPERS REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, D.M. PURNESH, 10 TH FLOOR, "THE RESIDENCY", NO.133/2, RESIDENCY ROAD, BANGALORE-560 025. 5. M/s SRI. NAKODA CONSTRUCTION LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. RATAN LATH, 10 TH FLOOR, "THE RESIDENCY", NO.133/2, RESIDENCY ROAD, BANGALORE-560 025. 6. MR V SOMASEKHAR S/O LATE M VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/A NO.80/1, VENKATESHWARA LAYOUT S O S LAYOUT, B G ROAD J P NAGAR 8 TH PHASE BENGALURU-560076 7. MR V GURUMURTHY REDDY S/O LATE M VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/A KOTHANUR J P NAGAR, 8TH PHASE VENKATESHWARA LAYOUT 3 RD CROSS, BANNERGHATTA ROAD BENGALURU-560078 8. MR RAJAGOPAL REDDY S/O LATE M VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/A NO.43, 6TH CROSS
4 NEAR MATHAJI TEMPLE J P NAGAR, 8 TH PHASE BANNERGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE-560076 9. MR ANANDAREDDY S/O VENKATAPPA M AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/A NO.555, JAMBUSAVARIDINNE KOTHANURU BANGALORE SOUTH BENGALURU-560076... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H.VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA, FOR R-1; SRI SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, SENIRO ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SRI PAVAN G.N., ADVOCATE FOR R-4 & R-5; SRI D.N.NANJUNDA REDDY, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ALONG WITH SRI ZULFIKAR KUMAR SHAFI, FOR R-6) THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 43877-880/2015 DATED 17/8/16. THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
5 JUDGMENT These appeals are filed against the judgment and order of the Hon ble Single Judge dated August 17, 2016, dismissing the writ petitions. 2. In the writ petitions filed by the purchasers of certain plots of land from the builder-developer, the prayer, in substance, was to restrain the respondents from utilizing the roads within the layout, by the general public. 3. The layout was formed at a point of time when the property was within Panchayath limits. The plan was sanctioned, constructions were made and certain buildings have, also, come up. 4. Subsequently, in 2007, the areas came under the Municipal Corporation. In view of the Bengaluru Development Authority Act, The Town Planning Act and the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, there were certain liabilities of the builder towards the statutory authorities.
6 Consequently, certain common areas were relinquished by the builder in favour of the statutory authorities. 5. The issue in this case is simple: Whether the owners of the plots in the layout are entitled to the exclusive use of the roads and common areas in the layout? 6. Our reading of the habendum clause is, there was no exclusive right conveyed to the purchaser of the plot for the exclusive use of the road in question. Particular plots were sold and conveyed with common user of the amenities. 7. In fact, the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike has published a notification stating that there has been no concept of gated community, and once a layout has been formed, the roads in the said layout automatically would come under the respective Municipal Corporation, and the general public would have free ingress and aggress to the roads within the layout. 8. We do not find any merit in the appeals. But, we are conscious of the rights of the plot owners in the
7 layout. We, therefore, clarify that the user of the roads by outsiders other than the plot owners must not cause any hindrance to the free ingress and aggress to those roads by the plot owners. 9. The appeals are, thus, disposed of. We make no order as to costs. Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE vgh*