Set up robust system for handling litigations, HC tells BBMP

It's required of the BBMP chief commissioner to establish a robust system for handling the litigation, including setting up a dashboard, as regards the notices issued by the BBMP and caveats filed both before civil courts and the high court, said Justice Suraj Govindaraj while passing orders in a writ petition.

Justice Govindaraj noticed certain lapses as well as inaction on the part of the BBMP in handling civil disputes. The court said that whenever any notice is issued by the BBMP, it is required to file caveats before the jurisdictional civil court and the high court so as to enable it to place its position before orders are passed.

"Necessary responsibility would also have to be affixed on the concerned officers and the lawyers of the BBMP to contest the matter in the court of law and not let the matter go uncontested,” the court said.

Also Read | 2024 Lok Sabha polls: BBMP to train officers

During the hearing, the BBMP submitted that it is not exercising any jurisdiction over the roads which have not been relinquished. It was submitted that unless an order of vesting is made, the BBMP would not have any power or authority over a road formed by private individuals.

The court directed the BBMP to conduct a survey within four months of all properties in Bengaluru where roads have been formed and determine whether the BBMP would exercise its jurisdiction and superintendence over the road.

The court observed that after taking into account the existence of the private road for all the purposes such as issuance of khata, bifurcation of khata, issuance of plan sanction, building licence and collection of tax, the BBMP cannot abdicate the liability to maintain the road on the ground that a formal relinquishment has not been made.

The petitioner claimed that the access road to her property at Ramamurthy Nagar was blocked by an education society and that the BBMP remained silent in the civil proceedings.

Meanwhile, in a subsequent development, an appeal was moved by the petitioner’s brothers and the educational society, challenging the single-judge order. A division bench has passed an interim order directing authorities not to precipitate the matter.