40-Foot Family Passage Not Automatically a BBMP Road, Karnataka HC Says, Leaving Access Dispute to Civil Court

The dispute concerned a 40 ft × 159 ft passage within land originally owned by M. Venkataramaiah.

After portions of the land were gifted or bequeathed to his children, BBMP created separate khatas and sanctioned building plans; the passage was not included in any of the resulting municipal property numbers.

An educational institution occupying properties belonging to some of the children later enclosed the passage with a wall and gate.

Following complaints, BBMP issued communications in 2011 calling for their removal, but later stated that the passage was private property and had not vested in BBMP.

The institution had also obtained a permanent injunction against BBMP in a civil suit.

The respondents’ writ petition seeking implementation of the 2011 communications was allowed by a Single Judge, who, among other directions, treated the passage as vested in BBMP and directed its maintenance and registration as a public street.

Appeals were brought by the property owners and BBMP.

Section 265 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 provides for the vesting in the corporation of public streets and specified appurtenances; the Court found no specific vesting of this privately formed passage in BBMP.

Section 17 of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 concerns sanction for subdivision of plots or a layout of a private street.

The Court held that, in the circumstances, the absence of sanction under Section 17 and the absence of specific vesting meant that khata bifurcation and the passage’s omission from the separate khatas could not establish deemed vesting in BBMP.

The Court rejected the Single Judge’s inference that the passage vested in BBMP because separate khatas had been created for the five properties and the passage was excluded from them.

BBMP’s inspection and affidavit described the passage as private and stated that it had not been relinquished; the record also disclosed no specific act or order vesting it in BBMP.

As no sanction under Section 17 had been sought or obtained, the Court held that the Single Judge’s finding of deemed vesting could not stand.

The Court left disputes concerning use of the passage to be pursued before the competent Civil Court.

The Court observed that any dispute between the parties concerning use of the passage may be brought before the competent Civil Court.