Sri. N. Prakash vs Mrs. Damayanthi, The Commissioner, Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and The Assistant Executive Engineer

A.S. Bopanna, J.—Sri. G.M. Chandrashekar, learned counsel to accept notice for respondents No. 2 and 3. Learned counsel is permitted to file his Vakalath in four weeks. Considering the nature of disposal, the notice to respondent No. 1 is unnecessary. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus to respondents No. 2 and 3 to implement their report dated 12.08.2008 and initiate proceedings against respondent No. 1 under the provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act.

The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of the property bearing No. 16, Khatha No. 57/1 situate at Chickalsandra Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. The 1st respondent is said to be the owner of the adjacent property bearing No. 16/A. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent has encroached a portion of the property belonging to the petitioner. In that regard, the petitioner is stated to have approached the authorities of the BBMP. The authorities on having inspected the spot have issued a communication dated 12.08.2008 to the 1st respondent indicating that she has encroached an extent of 10 ft. x 60 ft. of the property belonging to the petitioner. In that circumstance, the petitioner contends that the respondents No. 2 and 3 have not proceeded further in the matter and therefore an appropriate direction be issued.

The learned counsel for the respondents would point out that the very communication would indicate that it is a civil dispute between the petitioner and the 1st respondent with regard to the property. Though at that stage, the inspection had been made and the 1st respondent had been intimated, considering that the encroachment as indicated therein is that of the property of the petitioner, it is for the petitioner to establish the same before the Civil Court and seek for appropriate remedy in accordance with law, since the authorities of BBMP are not empowered in that regard.

In my opinion, the contention putforth by the learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 3 needs to be accepted inasmuch as the communication though addressed to the 1st respondent states that she has encroached a portion of the property belonging to the petitioner. The necessary relief in that regard either for possession or such other relief can only be sought by the petitioner by filing an appropriate suit before the competent Court and the authorities under the Act would not be in a position to undertake such exercise. Hence, reserving the said liberty to the petitioner, the petition stands disposed of. No costs.