Karnataka HC Quashes Committee Order | Finds No Encroachment Of Rajakaluve Or Public Road | Division Bench Ruling Binding On Legislative Council Petitions Panel
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Karnataka Single Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned direction issued by the Petitions Committee of the Karnataka Legislative Council. The court held that the finding of the Division Bench of the High Court concluding that there was no encroachment of public road or Rajakaluve in the concerned survey number would be binding upon the committee. Accordingly, the court directed that the direction issued on 8 March 2017 by the committee shall stand quashed.
The petitioner approached the High Court seeking to quash the direction dated 8 March 2017 issued by the Petitions Committee of the Karnataka Legislative Council. The direction was challenged on the ground that the committee had acted on a complaint filed by one C Ramesh regarding alleged encroachment of a public road and Rajakaluve at Sy.No.83/2, old Sy.No.83, BBMP Khatha No.2986/83/2 of Byatarayanapura village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk.
The complaint alleged that the petitioner had encroached upon a public road adjoining the Rajakaluve. Based on this, the committee issued a direction for appropriate action to the authorities concerned. The petitioner contended that the very issue was already considered by the Division Bench of the High Court in a public interest litigation filed by Shriram Properties Pvt Ltd against State of Karnataka and others in WP No.47747 of 2017 and connected matters disposed of on 19 January 2021. In the said proceedings, C Ramesh was respondent No.2 in WP No.1348 of 2018.
The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the Division Bench had categorically concluded that there was no encroachment of Rajakaluve or road as alleged by C Ramesh. Further, proceedings initiated by C Ramesh before the Land Grabbing Court were also dismissed. It was submitted that the Assistant Executive Engineer, BBMP had reported on 19 July 2017 to the Special Court that there was no existence of any Rajakaluve in Sy.No.83/2.
The petitioner therefore argued that the finding of the Division Bench would apply to the present facts and the committee’s direction could not be acted upon. The respondents included the Petitions Committee, Karnataka Legislative Council represented by its Chairman, the Secretary of the Karnataka Legislative Council, the Government of Karnataka represented by its Additional Chief Secretary of the Urban Development Department, and the Commissioner of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike. The impleading applicant was C Ramesh, who had filed the complaint before the committee.
The petitioner relied upon the judicial pronouncement of the Division Bench which had examined the site in question and the records submitted before it. The Division Bench concluded that a suit in OS No.3596 of 2015 was filed before the Special Court for Land Grabbing and that the Special Court, based on the report of the Assistant Executive Engineer, BBMP dated 19 July 2017, held that there was no encroachment of any Rajakaluve or public road in Sy.No.83/2.
The Petitions Committee, in the impugned direction, had directed the authorities to take action against the alleged encroachment. However, the petitioner argued that such direction was not sustainable in view of the clear judicial finding by the Division Bench on the same factual matrix.
The court recorded: “Having gone through the order of the Division Bench of this Court in WP No.47747 of 2017 & other connected matters, more particularly that in WP No.1348 of 2018, it is clearly and categorically observed by the Division Bench of a suit in OS No.3596 of 2015 having been filed before the Special Court Land Grabbing and the Division Bench has categorically come to a conclusion that there is no encroachment of any public road or a Rajakaluve in Sy.No.83/2 and the Assistant Executive Engineer, BBMP had reported on 19.7.2017 to the Special Court that there is no existence of any Rajakaluve in Sy.No.83/2.”
The court further observed: “That being so, the finding of the Division Bench of this Court though subsequent to the direction issued by Respondent No.1, the said finding would be binding even on Respondent No.1-Committee.”
The judicial reasoning clearly recorded that the existence of Rajakaluve in Sy.No.83/2 was negated based on a competent report by the Assistant Executive Engineer, BBMP and confirmed by the Division Bench. The Single Bench noted that the committee issued its direction on 8 March 2017, which was prior to the Division Bench order dated 19 January 2021, but the subsequent judicial pronouncement would bind the committee.
The court stated: “As such, the direction issued on 8.3.2017 by the Petitions Committee, Karnataka Legislative Council cannot be acted upon in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court.”
The order noted that no further contentions remained to be considered since the factual findings were concluded in the prior litigation.
The court issued the following directions in its final order:
The writ petition was allowed. The impugned direction dated 8 March 2017 issued by Respondent No.1 in No.KAVIPA:21:ASA/2017 at Annexure-Z3 was quashed. The order recorded that in view of disposal of the main petition, pending interlocutory applications did not survive for consideration and hence stood disposed of.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Sri. Shivaprasad Shantanagoudar, Advocate for Sri. Vinod Reddy V., Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri. Mahantesh Shettar, AGA for R1 to R3; Sri. N.R. Jagadeeswara, Advocate for R4; Sri. G.S. Venkat Subbarao, Advocate for Impleading Applicant on IA 1/25
Case Title: C Bhavani @ Hamsa vs. The Petitions Committee Karnataka Legislative Council & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC:23782
Case Number: WP No. 30129 of 2017
Bench: Justice Suraj Govindaraj
