ORDER : 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: i) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other writ, order rule or direction directing the respondent No.1 to remove the board put up in the housing complex of Petitioner (Annexure-A) ii) Issue a writ or certiorari or any other writ, order, rule or direction quashing the communication dated 19.08.2016 issued by R2 (Annexure-Q) and any actions taken pursuant thereto. iii) Grant such other and further reliefs as are just, including costs of the petition. 2. The petitioner claims to be a company incorporated under the Companies Act of 1956, engaged in the construction of affordable housing units that cater to the residential needs of persons belonging to economically weaker strata of society. In pursuance of said objective, the petitioner intended to construct apartment complex in Sy.No.39/1, 39/2, 40/3 and 42/1 of M.Medahalli village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal taluk, Bangalore Urban District with a project being named as ‘Janaadhar Shubha’. 3. In all 1128 apartments having been constructed in pursuance of a plan sanctioned on 9.01.2013, preliminary work being completed, commencement certificate came to be issued by respondent No.2 on 5.06.2013, and sold the apartments and thereafter the said purchasers have been in occupation of the said apartments. It is further submitted that No Objection, clearance certificate as required from various statutory authorities have also been obtained as regards which there is no claim contra by the respondents. 4. A communication was issued on 19.08.2016 by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1 contending that there is an encroachment of Rajakaluve by the petitioner while putting up construction in terms of Annexure-Q. The said letter has apparently been issued by respondent No.2 on account of certain complaints received from one by P.M.Krishnappa. Thereafter the Tahsildar is stated to have put up a board on the property of the petitioner stating that there is an encroachment of Rajakaluve. It is aggrieved by the correspondence issued by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1 and board put up by respondent No.1 that the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs. 5. Sri.C.K.Nanda Kumar, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that 5.1. there is, in fact, no encroachment of Rajakaluve in the property of the petitioner inasmuch as a survey having been carried out by the State through the Addl. 5. Sri.C.K.Nanda Kumar, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that 5.1. there is, in fact, no encroachment of Rajakaluve in the property of the petitioner inasmuch as a survey having been carried out by the State through the Addl. Director of Land Records which report has been filed along with a memo dated 28.09.2016 indicates that there is no building which has been put up on the Rajakaluve as per the village map, as also on the Rajakaluve is present and existing in the said properties except for putting up construction of overhead bridges at three locations and a concrete pipe at the edge of the properties to enable easy flow of the water if any flowing in the Rajakaluve. 5.2. Therefore, he submits that when there is no encroachment made on any rajakaluve, the question of any correspondence being issued by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1 or respondent No.1 putting up a Board alleging encroachment of Rajakaluve would not arise. 5.3. His submission is that the bridges which have been put up are to enable the residents of apartment complex to go from one area to the other since the Rajakaluve bifurcates the property into two portions and the same would not amount to any encroachment of Rajakaluve nor does it disturb the water flow, if any, in the said Rajakaluve. 6. Sri.Yogesh D.Naik, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and 2 would submit that 6.1. the plan which has been sanctioned by respondent No.2 on 9.01.2013 is after obtaining a ‘No objection’ from the Tahsildar as regards the location of the Rajakaluve and while granting sanction of the said plan, respondent No.2 has seen to it that there is no construction of building which is sanctioned on the area where Rajakaluve is present in terms of village map which plan has also been certified by the Tahsildar. 6.2. His submission is that since a complaint has been received, the same has been forwarded to the Tahsildar since the jurisdictional authority in relation thereto is Tahsildar and respondent No.2 has not initiated any action for the violation of the plan or otherwise against the petitioner. 7. 6.2. His submission is that since a complaint has been received, the same has been forwarded to the Tahsildar since the jurisdictional authority in relation thereto is Tahsildar and respondent No.2 has not initiated any action for the violation of the plan or otherwise against the petitioner. 7. Learned HCGP, on enquiry, submits that there is indeed no building which has been constructed on the said Rajakaluve except three bridges which have been constructed on the banks of the Rajakaluve which go over the Rajakaluve which is used by the residents of the apartment complex to go from one place to the other. She further submits that the said bridges do not in any manner interfere with the waterflow nor are those bridges constructed in the Rajakaluve. Her submission is placed on record. 8. Heard Sri.C.K.Nanda Kumar, learned Senior counsel for Sri.C.M.Kumar Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.Sarita Kulkarni, learned HCGP for respondent No.1, Sri.Yogesh D.Naik, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3. Perused papers. 9. The short question that would arise for consideration in the present matter is, whether the construction of a overbridge over a Rajakaluve can be said to be an encroachment of a Rajakaluve requiring action to be initiated by the Tahsildar in that regard? 10. An encroachment would necessarily require a party to have forcibly or unauthorizedly taken possession over a piece of property which does not belong to such a person. In the present case, the allegation is that the Rajakaluve which vests with the State has been encroached upon by the petitioner in the complaint filed by one Krishnappa. 11. On the face of it this complaint held no merit for respondent No.2 to correspond with respondent No.1 inasmuch as respondent No.2 had even before sanction of plan verified the same with the Tahsildar and after sanction of the plan, the plan was certified by the Tahsildar which would essentially mean that there is no encroachment on the Rajakaluve in terms of the sanction plan. 12. 12. There being no allegation as regards violation and/or deviation from the sanction plan and the construction being in accordance with the sanction plan, in furtherance of which occupancy certificate came to be issued by respondent No.2 to the petitioner, in my considered opinion there would be no purpose served by respondent No.2 in forwarding a complaint which respondent knew to be a false complaint to respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 could have well replied to the complaint placing on record the actions taken by respondent No.2 while sanctioning the plan and also issuing occupancy certificate at which time, the nature of construction, quantum of construction and violation of the building plan would have necessarily be gone into by respondent No.2. 13. Be that as it may, the only allegation now on record is the construction of three over bridges on the Rajakaluve which are claimed to be encroachment. As afore observed the bridges being constructed on the banks of the Rajakaluve, going over the Rajakaluve and there being no construction inside the Rajakaluve, which has the effect of obstructing the waterflow in the Rajakaluve, I am of the considered opinion that construction of such bridges cannot be said to be an encroachment requiring initiation of any action on the ground that there is encroachment of Rajakaluve. 14. In that view of the matter, I pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed, a certiorari is issued, the communication dated 19.08.2016 at Annexure-Q is hereby quashed. ii. A mandamus is issued directing respondent No.1 to remove the Board put up by respondent No.1 on the premises of the petitioner, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.