Storm Water Safety Can’t Be Drowned by Private Access Demands: Karnataka High Court Blocks Bridge Over Drain, Orders Completion of Retaining Wall

“Access Is Not a Right When It Risks Flooding an Entire Neighbourhood” — In a compelling judgment protecting Bengaluru’s urban flood control infrastructure, the Karnataka High Court declared that no individual or apartment association can demand construction concessions that jeopardize public safety. High Court held that the incomplete 15-meter retaining wall along the Storm Water Drain (SWD) near 10th Cross, S.R. Layout, K.R. Puram, must be completed as originally designed, with a height of 3 to 3.5 meters. The Court struck down attempts by respondent No. 6, an apartment owners' association, to have the wall height reduced to 1.10 meters to facilitate a private crossover bridge, stating bluntly that such a demand was "unscientific and dangerous."

The petitioner, Janasakthi Welfare Layout Association, brought a Public Interest Litigation raising urgent concern about BBMP’s failure to complete a crucial section of a retaining wall alongside the storm water drain that runs from Devasandra Lake to Seegehalli Lake via S.R. Layout. The residents pointed out that flooding during the monsoon was a recurring nightmare and that the scientifically constructed wall, meant to channel water safely, had been abruptly stopped near 10th Cross. The petitioner alleged that the stoppage occurred due to interference by Sripad Owners Association, which was lobbying to build a culvert across the drain to access their apartment directly from 10th Cross.

The residents argued that permitting this access would require cutting down the height of the retaining wall from its original 3.5 meters to just 1.10 meters, a move they feared would reroute water directly into residential streets during heavy rain. “The very purpose of constructing the wall would be defeated,” the petition stated.

The High Court noted that the BBMP had already submitted a technical report supporting the residents’ position. That report explicitly warned:

“Construction of a crossover by reducing the height of the retaining wall to 1.10 metres is unscientific. Such a reduction would lead to flooding and over-spillage of water.”

The Court rejected the claim made by respondent No. 6 that the retaining wall’s height was excessive, declaring instead that it was based on “a scientific study conducted to control flooding.”

As for the assertion that 70 families in the apartment complex would be left without access if the culvert was not built, the Court exposed the inaccuracy. It asked the respondent to produce documents showing sanctioned access via 10th Cross—but none could be provided. Instead, the sanctioned building plan revealed access via 9th Cross, which the Court confirmed was legally and physically available.

“The learned advocate for respondent No.6 was unable to identify or demonstrate the existence of a road through the 10th Cross connecting to the apartment,” observed the Court. “Photographs submitted by the petitioner confirm that flooding already affects the 10th Cross. Reducing the wall will aggravate this.”

In fact, the BBMP’s report made clear that the proposed culvert would “nullify the purpose of constructing the entire retaining wall” and expose neighbouring residents to flood risks. The Court categorically concluded that private convenience cannot override public safety.

Direction of the Court

The judgment ordered the BBMP to immediately resume and complete the construction of the retaining wall to its originally planned height of 3 to 3.5 meters, particularly the 15-meter stretch left incomplete near Sripada Apartments.

“Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are hereby directed to complete the construction of the Storm Water Drain, including the side retaining wall… particularly in the pending stretch near Sripada Apartments,” directed the Bench.

Given the imminent onset of the monsoon season, the Court further ordered that the work be completed within six weeks, refusing any leniency for delay.

By prioritizing scientific infrastructure over parochial demands, the Karnataka High Court delivered a strong message: “Flood control infrastructure is not negotiable.” This judgment is a milestone in urban governance, where infrastructure planning and environmental safety are often compromised under pressure. As the Court made plain:

“The proposed crossover would constitute an alternative access, which comes at the risk and cost of potential flooding… It is difficult to accept the contention that the height of the retaining wall is unscientific.”

The verdict reaffirms that no individual or private entity can be allowed to restructure city planning to suit personal convenience, especially not at the cost of a vulnerable locality's safety. The Court’s timely intervention ensures that Bengaluru’s flood-prone neighbourhoods will not be left exposed for the sake of short-sighted, politically-backed alterations.

Date of Decision: 28 May 2025