A.V. SRINIVASA MURTHY Vs. COMMISSIONER B.B.M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER pendency of the petition for nearly two years and filing of statements of objections of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and hearing of the matter from time to time, the petition has not been admitted and no interim relief is granted. Even after an extensive hearing today, the petitioner could not satisfy the Court about his own locus standi or bona fides to take up the issues which are raised in the petition.

(2.) THE petition in the nature of public interest litigation, in effect, questions construction on a piece of land apparently in the ownership of a private party who is joined herein as respondent No. 4. The prayers in the petition are couched in the following terms;

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 4, the main contesting party, has raised several preliminary objections to the maintainability of the petition and inter alia averred that the petition is nothing but abuse of the process of this Court, even as the petitioner himself wanted to encroach the property of respondent No. 4 on the basis of the concocted possession certificate. It is further stated that there are several litigations in respect of the sites formed in the layout and there has been litigation by him in the form of OS No. 7725/2011 against one Sri. Abbas Ali Bhora in respect of site No. 9, seeking permanent injunction. As against that, Sri. Abbas has filed his counter claim seeking permanent injunction against respondent No. 4 herein with a prayer for restoration of the road by removing the alleged unauthorised construction. It is categorically alleged that Sri. Abbas along with certain others has got the present PIL filed through the petitioner. According to respondent No. 4, the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) has, by communication dated 16.12.2013, already confirmed that site Nos. 8 and 9 are as per layout plan approved by the BDA. Thereafter, respondent No. 4 is stated to have obtained sanctioned plan dated 30.11.2013 from the BBMP for putting up construction on site No. 8 and the contention of the petitioner that respondent No. 4 has encroached upon 6th cross is stated to be absolutely false. It is also stated that pursuant to a complaint filed by the petitioner, the police personnel of Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force (BMTF) have examined the matter and filed "B" report, suggesting that no case was made out. An objection is also raised to submit that while BDA was the proper and necessary party, the petitioner has not joined them as respondent.