- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3024 WP No. 357 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 357 OF 2019 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. SMT ERAMMA W/O LATE GUBBACHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O DODDAGOLLARAHATTI, NAGADEVANANAHALLI VILLAGE, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT 560 056 2. SRI KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE GUBBACHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O DODDAGOLLARAHATTI, NAGADEVANANAHALLI VILLAGE, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT 560 056 3. SRI GANGARAJ AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, S/O LATE GUBBACHAIAH, R/O DODDAGOLLARAHATTI, NAGADEVANANAHALLI VILLAGE, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT 560 056 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. V.LAKSHMINARAYANA., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. ANUSHA L., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3024 WP No. 357 of 2019 REVENUE SECRETARY, M S BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, KHANDAYA BHAVAN, BENGALURU-01 3. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, N R SQUARE, BENGALURU-02 4. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, RAJA RAJESHWARI NAGAR ZONE, BENGALURU-560 098 5. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (TOWN PLANNING) BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, RAJA RAJESHWARI NAGAR ZONE, BENGALURU-560 098 6. ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, KENGERI SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU-560 061 7. SMT MAMATHA M P W/O SRI MANJUNATH P M R/A NO.1633,14TH CROSS, 1ST STAGE, CHANDRA LAYOUT,NAGARBHAVI BENGALURU-560 072 8. SMT LALITHA W/O SRI B SHIVASHANKARA REP BY HER GPA HOLDER SRI B SHIVASHANKARA S/O MALAKAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/O ANUGHRAHA NILAYA, NO.16, 7TH MAIN,7TH CROSS, KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN, NEAR RAGHAVENDRA TEMPLE, GANDHINAGAR, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3024 WP No. 357 of 2019 BENGALURU-560 060 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BOPANNA BELLIAPPA., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI. PAWAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. H DEVENDRAPPA., ADVOCATE FOR R-3 TO R-6; SRI. C.GOWRISHANKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R-7 & R-8) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO ISSUE TO THE PETITIONERS, AND TO HEAR AND CONSIDER THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONERS AND THEREAFTER TO TAKE A DECISIONS REGARDING THE SANCTION OF PLAN ON THE APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE R-7 AND 8 AND QUASH THE SANCTIONED PLAN AS STATED UNDER ANNEXURE-G1 AND G2, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. The prayer in this writ petition is for issuance of a direction to the respondents to hear the petitioners and consider their objections and thereafter take a decision regarding sanction of plan on the applications filed by respondents 7 and 8. 2. A direction is also sought for to the Deputy Commissioner to take steps in respect of land measuring 2 acres 14 guntas in Sy.No.41/2 of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3024 WP No. 357 of 2019 Nagadevanahally, Bengaluru South Taluk and remove the unauthorized construction. 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioners had instituted a suit for partition in O.S.No.8788/2006, in which, this land bearing Sy.No.41/2 was also the subject matter. As could be seen from the judgment and decree produced as per Annexure-D, the Trial Court has held as follows: “ORDER Suit is hereby decreed with costs. Plaintiffs are entitled for 1/3rd share in Sy.No.41/2. Since the said property is no longer available for partition, in lieu of the relief of partition and separate possession, plaintiffs are held entitled to recover value of their 1/3rd share in the suit property along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the suit till its realization from defendants Nos.1 to 8 and 16 jointly or severally. Draw preliminary decree accordingly.” - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3024 WP No. 357 of 2019 4. It is therefore clear that the Trial Court has held that the petitioners herein who were the plaintiffs therein would only be entitled to the value of their 1/3rd share in the suit property along with interest. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that against this decree, the petitioners have preferred an appeal in RFA.No.1731/2018 and the same is pending consideration. 5. In light of said submission, in my view, the appropriate remedy for the petitioners insofar as the second prayer to remove the unauthorized construction in the said land would be available if RFA.No.1731/2018 is allowed and the same cannot be sought for and not by filing this writ petition. 6. As far as other prayer regarding sanction of plan is concerned, it is admitted by the learned Senior Counsel that the petitioners have settled the differences between respondents 7 and 8, who obtained an approval for the layout plan. It is - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3024 WP No. 357 of 2019 therefore clear that his prayer has become infructuous. 7. Consequently, reserving liberty to the petitioners to seek appropriate relief in the pending RFA.No.1731/2018, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE PKS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 66