- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7077-DB WA No. 58 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T WRIT APPEAL NO.58 OF 2017 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. SRI V. DHAMODARAN AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS S/O. SRI N. VENUGOPAL NO.224/8, B.R.S. RESIDENTIAL BUILDING KAIKONDARAHALLI BENGALURU-560 035. 2. SRI K. SRINIVASA REDDY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS S/O. SRI KRISHNA REDDY R/AT NO.405, RUDRAPPACHARYA VATARA KAIKONDARAHALLI BENGALURU-560 035. 3. SRI S.M. SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS S/O. SRI MAHESHWARAIAH NO.224/8, B.R.S. RESIDENTIAL BUILDING KAIKONDARAHALLI BENGALURU-560 035. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI NARAYAN RAO H.R., ADVOCATE FOR SRI RAJESWARA P.N. ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANTS NO.1 AND 2) AND: 1. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE CORPORATION BUILDINGS N.R. SQUARE BENGALURU-560 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7077-DB WA No. 58 of 2017 2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING MAHADEVAPURA ZONE BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE MAHADEVAPURA, RHB COLONY WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560 048. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER OF TOWN PLANNING MAHADEVAPURA ZONE BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE MAHADEVAPURA, RHB COLONY WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560 048. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MAHADEVAPURA ZONE BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE MAHADEVAPURA, RHB COLONY WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560 048. 5. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER MAHADEVAPURA ZONE BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE MAHADEVAPURA RHB COLONY, WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560 048. 6. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MARATHALLI SUB-DIVISION BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE 2ND FLOOR, KRISHNA VAIBHAV BUILDING MARATHALLI, BENGALURU-560 037. 7. THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER MARATHALLI RANGE BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE 2ND FLOOR, KRISHNA VAIBHAV BUILDING MARATHALLI, BENGALURU-560 037. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7077-DB WA No. 58 of 2017 8 SMT. P. ANITHA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS W/O. SRI K.S. JAGADEESH REDDY RESIDING AT NO.45 KASAVANAHALLI, BELLANDRU POST BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560 035. 9. SRI K.S. JAGADEESH REDDY SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY HIS LR SMT. P. ANITHA (WHO IS ALREADY ON RECORD AS RESPONDENT NO.8) 10. M/S. VICEROY VENTURES A PROPRIETOR FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI C.H. RAVINDRA KUMAR REDDY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.420/2A 2ND FLOOR, BTS ROAD, 3RD CROSS WILSON GARDEN BENGALURU-560 027. 11. M/S. SHARANYA FAIR FIELD A PARTNERSHIP FIRM #545, 2ND FLOOR, 26TH MAIN BTM LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE BENGALURU-560 076 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI V. DAYANANDA REDDY. 12. M/S. SRS BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS #4007, VAMA IBBANI APARTMENTS KASAVANAHALLI, OFF SARJAPURA ROAD BENGALURU-560 035 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI S. RAJASHEKHARA REDDY. 13. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (BDA) T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU-560 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7077-DB WA No. 58 of 2017 14. KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD (KSPCB) "PARISARA BHAVAN", #49, 4TH & 5TH FLOOR CHURCH STREET BENGALURU-560 001 THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND MEMBER SECRETARY. 15. KARNATAKA STATE FIRE EMERGENCY SERVICES NO.1, ANNASWAMY MUDHALIAR ROAD BENGALURU-560 042 THROUGH THE DIRECTOR FIRE SERVICES. 16. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY (BESCOM) CORPORATE OFFICE, K.R. CIRCLE BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 17. BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD (BWSSB) CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD BENGALURU-560 009 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 18. AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA, CHQ RAJIV GANDHI BHAVAN SAFDARJUNG AIRPORT NEW DELHI-110 003 REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ATM). …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ARUN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI S.H. PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE, FOR R-1 TO R-7; SRI GAURAV G.K., ADVOCATE FOR R-8 AND R-11; SRI K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R-13; SRI JAGADISH D. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-14; SRI H.V. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R-16; SRI PRADEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI K.B. MONESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-17; SRI MARUTHI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI E. CHRISTOPHER, ADVOCATE FOR R-18; VIDE ORDER DATED 04.03.2024, R-8 IS TREATED AS LRS OF DECEASED R-9; R-10, R-12 AND R-15 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED). - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7077-DB WA No. 58 of 2017 THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 28-11-2016 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3881-3883 OF 2014 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID PETITION FILED BY THE APPELLANT. THIS WRIT APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR) This appeal is preferred by the appellants challenging the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.Nos.3881-3883/2014 dated 28.11.2016 by urging various grounds. . 2. Learned counsel Sri Narayan Rao H.R. for the appellants is present before the Court physically. 3. Learned counsel Sri Arun Kumar for respondent Nos.1 to 7, Sri Gaurav G.K. for respondent Nos.8 and 11, Sri K.Krishna for respondent No.13, Sri Jagadish D.Hiremath for respondent No.14, Sri H.V.Devaraju for respondent No.16, Sri Pradeep Patil appearing on behalf of Sri K.B.Monesh Kumar for respondent No.17, Sri Maruthi appearing on behalf of Sri E.Christopher for respondent No.18 are on record. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7077-DB WA No. 58 of 2017 4. In the meanwhile, learned counsel Sri Rajeswara P.N. for Appellant Nos.1 and 2 is present before the Court physically. He contends that the learned single Judge committed an error in holding that the writ petitions are not maintainable and deserved to be dismissed since there is no reason to decide the large number of issues which require enquiry into facts which can be tried only by a competent Civil Court. However, the learned single Judge failed to appreciate that the material on record clearly established that there were no disputed question of fact involved in the writ petition which was restricted to undisputed statutory violations committed by the contesting respondents. 5. He further contends that the learned single Judge failed to appreciate that it was a specific contention of the appellants that they had submitted representation dated 10.12.2013 to the respondents prior to filing of the writ petition and the inaction and failure on the part of the respondents to take appropriate action had led to filing of the writ petition which was maintainable under law. It is further contended that the learned single Judge failed to appreciate that apart from the fact that the relevant statutory authorities did not possess a mechanism to address the grievances of the appellants in the event of their inaction, the impugned order without referring to either the relevant statutory enactments which provide alternate and - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7077-DB WA No. 58 of 2017 efficacious remedy is vitiated and liable to be set-aside on this ground alone. 6. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and another vs. U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and others reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3767. He refers to paragraph 19 of the said judgment wherein it is observed as under: “19. In a catena of decisions, this Court has categorically held that illegally of unauthorized construction cannot be perpetuated. If the construction is made in contravention of the Acts / Rules, it would be construed as illegal and unauthorized construction, which has to be necessarily demolished. It cannot be legitimized or protected solely under the ruse of the passage of time or citing inaction of the authorities or by taking recourse to the excuse that substantial money has been spent on the said construction. The following decisions are of relevance and hence cited herein below to drive home the point that unauthorized constructions must be dealt with, with an iron hand and not kid gloves. (i) In K. Ramadas Shenoy v. Chief Officers, Town Municipal Council, after having found that the impugned resolution sanctioning plan for conversion of building into a cinema was in violation of the Town Planning Scheme and hence, it has no legal foundation, this Court held that the High Court was wrong in not quashing the resolution on the surmise that money might have been spent. The relevant passage reads as follows: - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:7077-DB WA No. 58 of 2017 “29. The Court enforces the performance of statutory duty by public bodies as obligation to rate payers who have a legal right to demand compliance by a local authority with its duty to observe statutory rights alone. The scheme here is for the benefit of the public. There is special interest in the performance of the duty. All the residents in the area have their personal interest in the (1974) 2 SCC 506 performance of the duty. The special and substantial interest of the residents in the area is injured by the illegal construction. 7. These are all the grounds urged by the counsel for the appellants seeking intervention of the order passed by the learned single Judge. 8. On the contrary, counsel for respondents submit that the action initiated against the private respondents – builders in respect of complainants under Section 321 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 an appeal has been preferred before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The learned single Judge has passed a detailed order considering all issues raised by the petitioners/appellants. Hence, the impugned order does not require any interference by this Court. Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the appeals. 9. Having heard the counsel for the parties on both sides, it is relevant to refer the order passed by the learned single Judge in the aforesaid writ petition. The learned single Judge at paragraphs 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 has observed as under: - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:7077-DB WA No. 58 of 2017 13. This Court is of the clear opinion that merits or otherwise of the present case deserves to be decided by the lower forums or the authorities of the public bodies like BBMP and BDA itself or the Town Planning Authority concerned and if they have so decided or so decide in future and the petitioners feel aggrieved of their decisions, then the relevant Statutes have already provided for appellate mechanism and forums for redressal of their grievances before them and finally before the Tribunal. 14. The petitioners, therefore, would be well advised to approach the said Tribunal itself and seek their impleadment in aforesaid pending appeal. If the learned Tribunal is satisfied about their bona fide and the locus standi that they need to be heard in the matter, the Tribunal is at liberty to implead them as party in the said appeals and as complainants, the present petitioners can lead their evidence and grievance before the said Tribunal. 15. In the alternative, they can also be directed by the Tribunal to approach the concerned public authorities like BBMP & BDA or Town Planning Authority itself first. 16. In case such an exercise is undertaken by the fact finding body like the Departmental authorities or the Tribunal and the petitioners are not satisfied with their decisions, they can still file Civil Suits separately against each of the private Respondents - Builders separately and impleading even the public authorities like BBMP & BDA etc., as defendants. 17. However, in view of the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to proceed further with this case and cases of this nature and holds that these type of writ petitions are not maintainable. The writ petitions, therefore, deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. No costs. 10. However, keeping in view the list of dates and synopsis, it transpires from the records that, respondent Nos.8 to 12 started to put up construction in land bearing Sy.No.8/2 of Kasavanahalli, village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk based on fraudulent, illegal and collusive documents by actively colluding with respondent Nos.1 to 7 and in violation of sanctioned plan and licence. A - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:7077-DB WA No. 58 of 2017 Relinquishment Deed was executed by respondent Nos.8 and 9 in favour of respondent No.1 in respect of the property in question. It is seen that representation were submitted by the appellants to respondent Nos.1 to 7 requesting them to take necessary steps to demolish/remove the illegal and unauthorized construction put up by respondent Nos. 8 to 12 and also to restrain them from putting up any further construction on the said land. However, writ petitions in W.P.Nos.3881-3883/2014 were filed by the appellants praying to quash the relinquishment deed executed by respondent Nos.8 and 9 and official memorandum dated 04.05.2012 issued by respondent No.4. However, the learned Single Judge by his order dated 28.11.2016 dismissed the petitions as not maintainable, as the matters between the petitioners and respondents were subjudiced before Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. 11. However, learned counsel for the appellants submits that challenging the dismissal of the writ petitions, the appellants herein preferred the present writ appeals challenging the legality and validity of the impugned relinquishment deed dated 04.05.2012 executed by respondent No.9 in favour of respondent No.1, as illegal, fraud, and also for other reliefs. It is further stated that much prior to passing of the impugned order, the contesting respondent has filed a memo for dismissal, the same came to be dismissed as not - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:7077-DB WA No. 58 of 2017 maintainable as the matter was sub-judiced before Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. However, it is to be noted that under Chapter V, Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, cancellation of instruments may be ordered when any person against whom a written instrument is void or voidable, and who has reasonable apprehension that such instrument, if left outstanding may cause him serious injury, may sue to have it adjudged void or voidable; and the court may, in its discretion, so adjudge it and order it to be delivered up and cancelled. Apart from it, it is deemed appropriate to refer to Order 1 Rule 8 CPC in a representative capacity for intervention by the Statutory courts. These are all the provisions, which is available to be litigants, even though he has preferred the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12. Having gone through the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge, it is relevant to note that even though various grounds has been urged in this appeal which is of the year 2017, we deem it appropriate to state the appeal does not have any substance so as to answer the legality in question and revisit the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge. But, keeping in view, the aforesaid provision of law and more importantly, in view of Section 108 CPC and Section 80 (2) CPC, even though lis has been initiated against the Corporation, prior notice is required to be given - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:7077-DB WA No. 58 of 2017 before initiation of the proceedings. Hence, we find no reason to revisit the order passed by learned Single Judge. Further, appeal is nothing but of a continuity of proceedings and merely because various grounds has been urged in this appeal, it does not arise to looking into the same. Therefore, the appeal being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE DKB/MN