High Court quashes allotment of land for Vishnu memorial

The High Court on Monday set aside the government order which had allotted land adjacent to Turahalli forest areas for construction of a memorial for late Kannada film actor Vishnuvardhan. 

A division bench comprising Chief Justice S K Mukherjee and Justice B V Nagarathna, while disposing of a petition filed by former wildlife warden R Sharath Babu, said that the land allotted for the memorial comes under the buffer zone and law prohibits occupancy of land around 100-metre radius of reserve forests.

The petitioner had challenged the government notification allotting two acres of land in Mylasandra village of Kengeri hobli, Bengaluru South taluk, for the construction of memorial.

He had contended that the area was part of a reserved forest which was home to 21 species of reptiles, 12 species of mammals, and 69 species of birds and any construction in the vicinity would hamper the habitat. The bench directed the government to find another suitable place for the memorial.

Fire safety
The High Court has directed the Urban Development department and the Directorate of Fire and Emergency Services to comply with the mandatory requirement of providing fire safety measures in public buildings.  While disposing of a PIL seeking directions to ensure enough fire safety measures in public buildings including the Vidhana Soudha, Vikasa Soudha, High Court building etc., a division bench headed by acting Chief Justice S K Mukherjee directed the authorities to safeguard the lives of the general public.

No arches on roads
The High Court has directed the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike not to construct any arches on roads. While disposing of a petition filed by Vijay B S, a resident of Prashanthnagar, a division bench comprising acting Chief Justice S K Mukherjee and Justice B V Nagarathna questioned why public money was being used to construct arches and how many such arches had been constructed.  The bench observed that such funds could be used for cleaning footpaths in the City. Commuting during the day, the bench said, was a nightmare.

The counsel for the Palike contended that the civic agency as such was not constructing any arches, and that it was only private persons/institutions such as temples that were constructing such arches. 

The petitioner had contended that two arches had been constructed on 8th Cross, First Main in Prashanthnagar at a cost of Rs 45 lakh and another arch at Sangolli Rayanna Circle at a cost of Rs 60 lakh. 

The petitioner has contended that despite giving several representations, the Palike did not take any action to stop the illegal construction. He had sought for demolition of illegal arches in the area.  The bench directed the petitioner to submit his representation to the BBMP commissioner in two weeks and ordered the latter to consider the representation in three months.