GSTAAD HOTEL PVT LTD vs. THE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE

1 TN TIlE HIGh COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED TI 118 TIlE 19 “DAY OF APRIL 2012 BEFORI ri-a. HON’BIL MR JtiSTICE ASHOK 13. HINCHIGERI wBtrYn1TIQL&.31L39 3171&QL2QJ1 (LB RE.$j BETWEEN: 1. Gstaad Hotel Pn. Ltd. A Company Incorporated under the Companies Act. 1956 and Having Its Registered Office at Raheja ‘Ibwers, Linking Road And Main Avenm. Santac’ruz West Mumba.i 400 054 and Bianch Office at Onyx Centre. 41t Floor. #5 Museum Road. Bangalore - 560 001 reprecented herein b> ftc Dlrecicir. Mr Adli)a Raheja 2 dity3R’ilvja Son of Deepak R theja Aged ibiut 28 ‘eais Residmg it Rahejas. 82,1 G 13 Marg Juhu M inibai 400 04 (No at 1ingz1ore) P’fliOi1 C, (Ti ,n Aj “h K ima “isa .‘ a. fr’ M, .I)SR Legal \J tifl

ANI): I Tfr Elruiiat Liengulutu Mahanagaza Palike, Office of the Commissioner, M iiianaara Pahkc. N R.flrele. Bangaloit %0 002, Repre’ented in the Commissioner. 2. The Joint Commls%ioner (Eact) Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagan Pailke. Mayo Hall. Bangalore I. 3 The Assistant Revenue Officer. (ShanUnagar) Sub Division Office. The Bruhal Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike. P.U B Building. 12” Cross, I3angaiore. 1 The State of Karnataka. Department of I Tthan I)evelopment By Its Principal Secretary. Vidhana Soudha. Bangalore . Respondeni (By Sri N B. ishwanatii ACA for R4. a Sri G.M.Chandrashekhar Ads oc ate for Ri to R3) The’e writ petltion% are tiled under Ankles 226 & 22 ,f tn C institution of India pnvlng to quash the i npugncd uotve dated 276 2011 issued by itt recpondcnt As,istan 4 Rcvtnui Oflict r is pet 4s i htutoand quash tH lnruPned rcn .ltel 8.62 ii pa” 1 std by tiL eccndn 4 ‘1% ai R cr it Mi’ r ‘.. rti ‘ ii c’curc B in etc • ct. ii e’ wr 1 tt tion. 1 flfl.lg on f., prni’nuun 1 caiin in di tieC , it midc tic- fnll’,nmr.

-3- ORDER The petitioners have called Into question the notice, dated 27.06.2011 (Annexure-A) and the endorsement, dated 08.08.2011 (Annexure-B). The controversy revolves round the separation of the khata and assigning of two municipal numbers - one for the property purchased by the petitioners’ predecessor-In-title and the other for the property (rose garden area) got by It from the Corporation of the City of Bangalore (hereinafter called ‘Corporation’) by virtue of the exchange deed. 2. SrI Ajesh Kumar. the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Impugned endorsement Is barred by limitation. Section 114-A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 flcMC Act’, for short) provides for the re-opening of the case of recording of the transfer of title by the Commissioner but only within three years. In the instant case, the khata came to be mutated In favour of the petitioners on 01.04.2006. 3. The learned counsel submits that the notice at Annexure-A Is vague, as It does not mention what is the flag

fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of facts. He submits that despite the petitioners’ filing a detailed objections on 07,07,201.1 (Annexure-X) and seeking a.n opportunity of hearing in the matter, the petitioners are neither given an opportunity of hearing nor their objections are considered, He also takes exception to the petitioners’ predecessorsin4it1e being put on notice. 4. He submits that the impugned endorsement is without the application of mind, The impugned endorsement states that it i.s found that the storm water drain is flowing in the property bearing No,24/ 1, He submits that the Deed of Exchange, dated 30.12.1970 AnnexureC) clearly mentions the existence of the storm water drain, He would therefore contend that the respondent Nos, 1 to 3 cannot feign ignorance of the 5. Sri jesh Kum.ar further submits that the second enquiry is hit by the doctrine of resjudicata. it is on holding the enquiry that the Additional

.5- Commissioner of 1313MP has upheld the unified or imalgamaled khaia He submits that hailug permitted the petitioners/iheir predecessors In title to develop tht land in qutstion without causing obstruction to the storm water drain, they cannot now rise up and conk nd that the petitioners’ khata iiwolves the stonn water drain area and is hence required to be reviewed. He also submits that as per the revised City I)evelopment Plan of Bangalore. the respondent No’ I to 3 have evolved a policy of public - private participation for upgrading the stonn water drain. I b. Flie li arned counsel for 11w impteading appli ai t Si ‘iek Redd ,uhmits that the impleading applicant is i. resident ot thc locahty lie resides OIL the Ittal dailva Roan. ha siont ni r di i i 1 i k1 1 1’ i,i U i’( ii Ti%Ihii 1 t ..foli(tentNi’:. I r 3 iia.’ h 1.( 4’” n to tIn u’tition’r’ f ) ‘Is clo,rrc in in’ . 1% aniio%InZtu’tnht ii 1 ii .id’ ‘itliI 1 sin’q II

6- drain (II) he shall not change the alignment of the said dialn. lb sluM that both these c onditIon are violated. lie drew my attention to the order passed in the earlier enquiry which teads as followc: ‘On the basis of the spot surrey and sun’eyor report dated 27.08.2008 It is clear that In the City Sy.NoJ55. 1073 sq.qard Is lclentffled as (frCdfl and M/s.Gstczad hotel Pm. Ltd.. has dosed the S(W1c by filling up with debris and oilier budding materials and has obstructed the easy flow qt drain veater 7 Sn Reddy submits that the width of the storm ‘itater diam is 73 ft.’ flu pc titloners ha’i c- left only 20 ft. k r the water tc pass through the same flit remalnkw S3 ft ar ci uodu I ly thc wthiornrs hi filling a with (lit mud “tc Hb submits th it thc vhiahle rjØft% c’ltic iubhi’ €acb irgIiffirtcIIytl rUt - 8 Sn kcck’y i bmits ‘hn tin peiitlonn’s ar’’ ‘ii’s iiftc-Ij) euu U’is (nit i ikrflfl ;rck.! 1 stat’s h. Ic, .1. 1 ur c’ Liv’ i etC On I i”’ ii —

-7 i hal the respondents are (lcnmlislmlg the structure oii I lie si (Hill ‘Vat(r drain, thic Court direct ed the respondents to maintain the status quo; in the light ol th status quo order, the petitioners also ought to have restrained their hands. so conteii(ls Sri Reddv, lie also brings to nn notice the I)ivision Bench order, dated 04 08 2011 passed in WPNo3l394/2009 (LB BMP/PIL). I’he said public interest litigation came to be disposed of recording the undertaking ot the I3BMP that it would remove all encroachments over the storm water draii 1 I () Sri C M (handrashekar the learned counsel f’,r Ihe n spond ii os I to 3 submits tF at the xchant died i \ x rt C s xecii1ed iher tahiiig the Iri div e I om The lnunstrator 1k sihn1s that eho of lu C C s’& icr M I t i 94( to id@s t or the x hav if 1mm- v bk pr 7 p’ rr I h sa 3 o r- xr I 3 hI ( Yi 1c

8 12. AcquLsittort of property wit! Interests tlwrct Subject to the provisions qi sectIon 79. nw C’omnussloner mat, br nit purposes of rhLc Act. acquire on lehalfnJ the corporation rnovc’able or Immovable property within or without the city or any Interests in such property: Provided that (a) the commissioner shall be bound by any resolution of the standing conuninee fixing terms, rates or nn’clmzmi price for a particular case or for any class 01 cases: (b) the sanction of the standing coniunittee shall be required fir the exchange of wuj immovable property for the taking ot any property on lease joT a term aicceedlng twelve months. on br tht acteptante of am, q!tts or “eqw?st ,.f j roperty bardenccl Li, in ohligcillor. aid 1”) the scn’nrn of he oj’oanr 4 tic Oil ‘iTt 1 c-hz & rcqi!cl I I ;t t it orc’cptrm”e n. acqt 4 lsttiori c 1 ri. u, i.niprntal;e i roj-ETuJ iliac cslue ‘d flit’ JiOJ eny tn’’h ii L’ prrpx-. 1 ii cu.c,. ‘IL 71 irc or j”e fri £ %“awJc L 2’ i’ i’ZOLM C1’V L I

9- WI jór the raking ofany property on Lease Jo,’ a term nreedlnq three years’ or till) fru’ cite wvepiain of anti qt or bequest of pmperey burciened by cm obl(qculon (f the vaLue qi cnc’ii property exceeds onc thousand nqwes.. 10. On the Court specifically asking him whether the sanction of the Government was taken, he first submit’ that it Is not obtained. Subsequently, he submits that the records are not readily aailable. According to him the exchange deed Is executed as pei the directions ot the Administrator to the Commissioner of the Corporation ride the formefl letter, dated 7 R I ()7() H( snhjplt that ttc a wi prcipw i-tie’ exchanged ‘vhich the C”.rporatloi’ ha’s got from the pc titic ;ien preckec ‘sor itt-tide ant 1 Ua prcrx.rtv ithich ha xllki ‘rs’ pti ‘,sc r t- .t r. I ( nrporatini aie ‘4 (flflhI)3l ibk. ntture ir’l In’ nIce ‘he 1 Ii ‘YCtc Ii I’ %ttbflhlt lb ‘t 1 W11’ f l)i’e O’I IF) l) ‘I i4t In’. 1 H . itt 1 i t r f I I

10— to the petitioners’ predecessor-ni• title is measuring 1.345 sq.yards, the drain ineasunng 1.075 sq. yards Is expressly excluded from the land given to th petitioncrs 4 predec essor m title. 11. SrI (“handrashekar submits that the Impugned notice and the order are in the natuie of continuation of the proceedings initiated against the petitioners He brings to my notice the order dated 3 11 2008 (Annexure-L) passed by the Mditlonal Coniniissloner of BBMP lie read out the operative portion of the order. which is as follow. 1. sls br the cfratn area ts concerned the BBAIP has ri complete right owr flu prupeicy cacd the Ititlas ould,otuielud’tlwdrwr wcc n’csixrq lOi co.yurds. Vu •W,s (iwad jboc’ p lid. ci, .0 hu ‘wujrujht.taffc’j (p’T! (ski t a uot’hc ?‘qh c; ‘ ess 1 rhctrrrop’r 2 s In is (ig • “ltl47ig((I phjl rft c iv ci Rnsc .,czr*lt nv’isuruiQ ‘ 1’ r :j,rel , ‘r a’vl ,i.c1 ‘ki I’ll itt’ ill S •‘fJ l”•t ‘bt ‘Oj’’ ..c1:’ Criu 1 U

0 — ii - ‘Mall be included in the katha, subject to the condition that the 11/ s.Gstacid Hotel P,’t.Lid.. chnuld nor construct ant, buikitug over that area wad should maintain it as park brj Iëncing with ornamental comnound - 12. The learned counsel submits that the said order, which states that the khata should not include the drain area measurIng 1,075 sq. yards has attained the finality. No challenge whatsoever Is raised to the said order He submits that the Impugned orders an. only m continuation of the said Additional Conunissioner” order, the opetatli e portions of which arc cxtrac tc d herchnboi c ‘3 fht Ic inwd our sel %uhinfts that on t ansidt nnç i ic • titioners aepl he impugned order at Ainiexun P v p’s d lie .‘ibmit% that th petition is lat.i t c’”i i”l iti tii tticii tail 7 it . ft I-Ic u mits th at thc p ‘titit, icr lii’ c 1iIt’cl ‘ii) 7.tliI.flIfl(t 1/- ft .. ‘lt t’)fl %r*t at’ t 4 ‘ ib it] 1ltlc.:;:’c, I-

I - 12 the 1)etitioiiers have atiracted 11w impunec1 action lie ubrnits that the petitioners arc permitted to eonslniet RCC box type drain on the torrn water drain cir a to the txtent of S mti. width. 14. Sri Ajesh Kurnar, in the course of his rejoinder, submits that the orders which are had in the beginning cannot he made good by the respondents filing the . otinters. affidavits or by giving the reasons iii the eeure of ariunents In support of his submissions he relics on the Apex ( ourt s jHdgment in the ease of MOHINDER SINGH GILL AND ANOTHER v. THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS f(Mt d ii MANU/SC/0209/1977, Jh has also relied oi tht- luilowing ainhoritic. \ I, o4o47/2OJ I Mr S \inh Iic Stj (f K iritaka and 1 >t}&i, C I) fl I /6 ,cd Mo’id Si n I. biu 1) nll n, I cd thr I’ I d Id tint t ndj l L Id. a ‘ t th i

I i 3, MANI,’SC/0366 1 ’ 1978 Motilal Padainpat Snar Mi1B, (‘o.Ltd. v, State of I ttar Pradesh and others. 4. MANU/KA/0314/2010 JhHanurnappa v. The Special Deputy Comrnissiorer ‘nd others. 5. MANU/KA/0079/2004 KSushecla Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and others. 6 MANU/KA/1230/2010 SNenkoji Rao v. Bangalore Development Anti ioritv. ? MANU/SC/0559/2003 Surya Dcv Rai x Ram C bander Rai and others I 8. MANI/S( /0034/19/5 Hukam Chnd Shvam Lal lJniou f India and otiwrs 9 MA\T ‘SC /0004/1087 B K S inivasan an I 4 ht ,ta u t Ka[ ataka and others ;$ MAMSC, 1 0Ii9i)0(5 Kit I’VaflhiiurLimaI a id irhei s 11 Mr2\ ( i / QSQ Rrr1i I i a d a 10 ( 1-’ I a J t F

14 12. MAN! /KA/0024/1992 The Stale of Karnataka v Gopalakrishna ‘*111 and oth n 13. MANtJ/SC/OlOO/1967 Commissioner of Income Tax. Hyderabad v. Motors and General Stores IP) Ltd. 14. MANU/KA/0248/ 1994 - S.Shivashankar v. Commi.ssioner. Corporation of the City of i3angalore. 15 MANU/KA/0909/2001 Sri R.RaJmal v. The Commissioner, Corporation of the City of Bangalore and another 16 MANU/KA/0087/1982 Prerarhand and etc. i Cc rporation of the City of Bangalore nd etc 1 ‘3 Sri Alesh Kumar %ubnlr, flint hat petifont 1% ha o’il- been acting pursuant It’ liii e’whaiwc dced 1 aLeI 40 1) 1’)’, (nncu a -( j H q 1 nt t1 t ti t em e 1 t t no t cei cd a n)t’ A r r’a hm t it iirn.i s IA 1 1 .1’. er t.s 4m(l 1)1 .1)’ c .1) I clt—v’.s LI 1. i1’t I1”1fl’1L1’ ha’ n lit it p

15 conditions of licence. The petitioners after taking the permisskm from the recpondents have completed 9ac of the upgradation work on the storm ater drahi. 16. The submissions of the learned counsel have receb ed my thoughtful consideration 11. Whether the sanction of the Government was necessary for the execution of the exchange deed whether the Corporation was justified in giving the at cess to the petitioners predecessor In title to tlu storm water drain. ctr. need not be examined In these petitions TI am path lut stior s the ahdit of Hit exchan c Itec )r ny o nan th nu fcr p oidh lit twcesc. in approprialt’ pro’ c rdii.g. 1 . liL s;,rnc an lx \ ii I I. ii ) Cl r bjinrinnp of 1.0 nl’at.. .; ri-’,jcjetij .‘1 he— 1 rr.IiV ‘ in :‘.t t S

16- be said to have am- Interest In the matter. Therefore. I.A.No 2/2012 for linpleadnient is rejected. I lowever the liberty is resen’ed to the inipleadinsa applicants to make necessary n piesentatlon to tile 1313MP for getting the alleged encroachment removed. if the BBMP shows any Inaction In the matter. the impicading applicants may take recourse to such proceedings as are pennissible In in 19 Ihe short question thai anses for my eonsideratIon is whether the respondents are just1&d In hiturcating thc khata ont for the main land I.e . thc land purchased by 1he petftloners piedeesor hi -tit ic and the other Ioi the roe iarden i.e . the land gh en b tlic Corporation in the IwtItF1ier% prwck cessor hi titic ‘inch i hut ext’hLng’ cittd Ihe bifiucatiun 1% nri accoiir’! A lucre- i.einU a ‘torn ‘at r dr :ln bebvet n the said ni—’ ‘axicI% ib’ ‘torni nakl diaan ‘ii tact dIrIde% the fir. IMOT)’ fl,e% if

- 17 20. The sale deed executed in favour ol the petitioners by their iendors ma be including the storm waler drain area also. But (lien, the petitioners rights would not be lughei ci better than those ot’ their vendors. The exchange deed clearly states that the stonn water drain continues to belong to the Corporation only. Clause Ga of the Exchange Deed reads as follows: 6(c4 That the public drain situate to the East of the kind given in etrhange by the parry of the first part to the party of the second part shall coruinue to belong to the party cit thefirst parL 21 If the width of the storm water drain is sunk fnm Oft c It b3th.fllhngtp rftlu mud t b hc petitirna ‘, the %tcin ‘walti drai i may get blccked in ‘ucl a situation iien the hca” tinocling at 4nrm water ‘wcur%. ii eiidatuei s i he life. ft may be flg-fl’S%1J’j to thr’s ‘i thc stc watel di r 0 The ‘ l’h’ 11t —i j til sit I in air optr 1 A

IL, 1€, - Karnatalca Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 prohibits the erection of any %tnlctnrc upon or over any open channel without the written permission of tbt. (oniniis.sioner. Sec tion 288B pi oliibits the dtposinng of the things on any open channel without the written permission of the (‘omniissioner. If the petitioners have taken the written pennission ot the Commissioner fur the upgradation of the storm water dram. as claimed by them. it is open to them to act but strictly within the parameters of the written permission granted b3 the Commissioner 22. Ii the petitioners have unauthorisedly entered upon and occupk d thc storm wattr drain t is also open ft thc respondent’ to initiate the proceedings l’ivc‘kitig Sect iun 431-iA ot thc KT” Ac r Sim’larly. ii the t F or Jr fo then -jwi’ “v. i’rtediiut c-in be initiar’d atnifl%i in t icr ‘ tic ii hi Mi. ‘lb nc’ ins I I

19 contained in Sections 436 A and 441 KMC read as follows 436 A. Prohibition of unuuthorLsed occupation of land (1) Aruj person who unauthorisedly enters upon or uses or occupies any land belonging to a Corporation to the use or occupation oJ which he is not entitled or has ceased to & entitled, shall, on conviction, be punished with. imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and within fine which may extend to five thousand rupees (2) Any person who having uriauthorisedly occupied whether bejoft or after the commencement of the Karnataka Municipal (orporahons and (errarn Othc r Laws (Arnendmertt) lct 1984 any land b longing to a Corporation fr ttu usc r c upatror of u’hrc h hr no titkd to. a. I t r itlid fiC aL nt aid n n uarcc f t rdcr t ci Ci Kar Li’

which niuzj (‘xieIzd (a fztft) rpces per acre of lurid or part thereof for ecenj dais oiz which the occupation continues after the daft r4 die first (‘Ofli’icliOTl for such qIJcnce (3) Whoever iitwrzdorially aids or abets ilie commission by arty other person of an offenc punishable under subsectioiz (1) or sub secnon (2) shall. Oil conviction, be punishable with the same punishment provided for such oJjirtce under the said sub sections. 441. Penalty for urtauthonzed use oJ Corporation property. Whoever dishories fly misappropnales or converts to his own airy Corpoiatron propcrtij or puts into improper or unauthorised use such property shall on corwictton. be punished wuh irnpnsonmerzt z i’hich ii at rxrena to dirt youths or u (di Jim u rwn may extent toJP’r hundred nipets orjine. 2 Fhex i’ ,onw aispute a’ Iü whether the 1CpOfld( nt , ha e cd -n nntv”es en the p itinii’ rs i’i re1nnvln& the ai1e& ti cnerou hmcnts. ohs riic tlOliS, t( lIit (ifli1dYe 13iiY n h snI t1 0 )tL ‘S lit Pt p i mr r my v 11 3 t I

21 any notice. Be it as It may. if anybody has violated the law. he can always be brought to the book. 24. It is also nevessdrv to refer to the order dated. 4.8.2011 passed by thc Division Bench of this Court while disposing of V.P.No.3l394/2009 (LB I3MP PIL) recording the respondents’ undertaking that the encroachments on the rajakaluve would be removed. The respondents are bound to act in compliance with their undertaking and in discharge of their statutory obligations. 25. The arguments that the Impugned notice and order are barred lw limitation and are hit by irs judicata do ilot ommend thern’e1 e’. to inc The Additional Commission i has aireadi pitied tlic or&r ii 1 008 liollmp hat the ctti (F ntishoullnt nclilc tin drm iF 2 hesam in me I the f 1 h’ mpu o nmu m atic ;fl ;‘vqic”l (‘*12’ ‘ 4’t • It’ ct • rN .,avl ‘grin api: I L I

22 3.11.2008. More or jeq• they are of consequential nature. 26. The doctrine of i-es judicata also does not come to the rescue of the petitioners in any way, becaust in the earlier enquiry also It was held that the petitioners have closed the storm water drain. The relevant portions of the order on the earlier enquir) are already extracted hereinabove. 27. On the allegation of thc lo1ation of the principles of natural justice also, what can Ix said is that In the enquiry the outcome oi which Is contained in the order, dated 3.11.2008 LAnneure-Lj. the petltioner were given an opportunity of hearing. 2S On ‘n -pt” ilk all’, askiniz whether then’ are any fiVe lan s Rc gulaunn”-. Guidelines in the gf urnhng and bifun’ahm 11w kliaii ot tin two prnpt flies. I jor s etc (ii A it’ith

23 - office order, dated 4. 1 .200:3 provides for the Unison or amalgamation ol the khata, if the two properties are immediately adjacent. The office order, dated 4. 1.2003 reads as follows’ bb ,..,,, ,.c)._ ,A ...‘,., ,. ,.,..‘. ‘ ‘.—‘ —,.—.‘,—-.‘ ‘.- ‘tU 7ç Qj zc DJ7r Zto cD &,D z’ “—s -•‘< ‘- “—b —— ,—.) -,‘— I I . _1 j S..)’. _S__.,_ f:’.. ...‘... .i’. .) ._.)%..S.. ,.. ‘,-‘ ,. — —‘ —< I’’ — “ —“ -‘-( . ., —. —, .-—- .r’ , Jt ‘• ‘“) ‘ “ .“‘ “r c - .._ ... —vs.L .‘..: ‘,,i Z — X” ““ “ —-‘- ‘e—-’ — ‘- --‘ ‘-- “ J. “ “ L)” -

24 d &1s — ‘7•’ ——— — I — - — — — -‘— — C — C L er I1s drtocc :) z7 o C — — • 29. In the instant ease, it is not in dispute that th property purchased by the petitioners predeccssorin title and the property given by the Corporation in exchange ar not adjat n1 A storm atei drain xist in between. iherelore the pet itiofl rs ire lint eHtiUed t hax e a nijified or maiainated or ,uiie r ompo’itu th a Ii r i t )( w s a ite hat a to th 1w pi p tic lahin La either sal of ti c torm x

- 25 30. Further. the bifurcation of the khata does not affect the petitioners rights In ‘uiv wax. None of their rightt are infringed The khata iq only a fiscal entry. It only enables the party to pay the property t’ix. It does not in any way confer any right or title on any party. By assigning two separate khata numbers, It cannot be said that the petitioners’ Interests have suffered In any way. The storm water drain lalling In between the pctltloncrs’ two properties continues to be the property of the BUMP. 31. Fm all tin aforesaid reasons. I dismiss these petitions. No aider A t . costs ‘1/ I (rn/ME)