- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14350-DB WA No. 83 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT APPEAL No. 83 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. RATHNAMMA, W/O LATE C.KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 2. SRI MUNIRAJ K., S/O LATE C.KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT WARD No.114, No.10, GANGMEN QUARTERS, SOUTH ROAD, KBAR ROAD, AUSTIN TOWN, VIVEKNAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560047. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI M.D. RAGHUNATH, ADVOCATE A/W SRI MANJUNATHA S. V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. NITHYANANDAN J., AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/O JAYARAM, No.195, CORPORATION QUARTERS, SOUTH ROAD, AUSTIN TOWN, BANGALORE 560047. Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14350-DB WA No. 83 of 2025 2. THE COMMISSIONER, BBMP HEAD OFFICE, CORPORATION CIRCLE, HUDSON CIRCLE, HUDSON CHURCH, TOWN HALL, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA 560002. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BBMP, DOMLUR SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICE, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 1ST 'B' CROSS, DOMLUR EXTENSION, BANGALORE 560071. 4. THE HEALTH OFFICER - EAST, BBMP, MAYOHALL, ASHOK NAGAR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA 560025. 5. THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, OFF AT 12TH FLOOR, PUBLIC UTILITY BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. JAYNA KOTHARI, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI AZAHAR ALI FAROOQUI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; SRI M.A. SUBRAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R5) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13/12/2024 IN WP No.25448/2023 AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT No.1. THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14350-DB WA No. 83 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA) The petitioner-respondent No.1 herein, who happens to be a person with different ability, was allotted a particular shop by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike. The said shop was demolished. It appears that the demolition occurred in view of the order dated 04.07.2023 passed by this court in Writ Petition No.5595 of 2023. All those aggrieved, whose properties were subjected to demolition, approached the Court. 2. As far as the petitioner is concerned, he was permitted to construct the shop for his business in a marginal land. The petitioner filed the instant Writ Petition No.25448 of 2023, in which he prayed to declare that the demolition of his shop was arbitrary. The petitioner further prayed to direct the respondents to permit him to put up petty shop on the property-the marginal land to enable him to continue to earn his livelihood. Compensation of Rs.10 lakhs was also asked for. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14350-DB WA No. 83 of 2025 3. Learned Single Judge allowed the petition in terms of the following directions, "i. The writ petition is allowed permitting the petitioner to construct a Booth measuring 6 feet x 7.9 feet in terms of the sketch and to operate from out of such Booth as a transitory operation without causing any nuisance. ii. The petitioner would be entitled to this use until the 2024 Rules are notified and the application filed by him in terms of such Rules is considered. The petitioner must also not only remove the debris as is available at the site but must also incur all costs in putting up fabricated Booth as now permitted. iii. The application stands disposed of. It is needless to observe that if the applicants could make any application, after the petitioner is allotted or otherwise, an alternative premises, under Rules 2024, they would be at liberty. iv. The BBMP shall be at liberty to issue notice calling upon the petitioner to pay such rent as would be permissible under law after the petitioner constructs a booth as is permitted." 3.1 The present appeal is filed by the original respondent Nos.5 and 6 who were not parties to the writ proceedings initially, but upon the application filed for impleadment, permitted to be joined as per the order dated 10.06.2024. The appellants are the owners of the adjoining property. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14350-DB WA No. 83 of 2025 3.2. While allowing the petition, learned Single Judge verified the aspect that the shop of the petitioner, as originally stood before the demolition, was in the marginal land. The report was called for which was filed on 02.07.2024 along with the photographs. Learned Single Judge observed and recorded the finding on the basis of the said document that the tree standing on the marginal land was in existence. The petitioner was permitted to occupy the place. 3.3 Learned Single Judge thereafter observed in paragraph 4 as under, " This Court, on a careful consideration of the Report, had called upon the petitioner to file an affidavit on whether he would ensure that the debris at the subject property are cleared and the details as regards the extent of marginal land that he proposes to occupy to construct a Booth and his readiness to operate such booth until he avails allotment in terms of the proposed Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike [Estate Management] Rules, 2024 which is awaiting approval by the State Government. In response, the petitioner has filed an affidavit stating that if he is provided an area measuring 10 feet x 8 feet at the same place where he was earlier permitted to operate, he would put up a temporary structure which is made of metal and sheets and that he would remove all the debris at his own cost." 3.4 Learned Single Judge required the petitioner to ensure that the debris at the place are cleared and that the area admeasuring - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14350-DB WA No. 83 of 2025 10 feet x 8 feet would be permitted to be occupied as was in occupation earlier. The petitioner was permitted to put up only a temporary structure made of metal sheets. Furthermore, a sketch was produced by learned advocate for the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike [BBMP] depicting the locations including the place to be permitted to be occupied as a marginal place by the petitioner. 3.5. While learned advocate Mr. M.D. Raghunath for the appellants would submit that the permission to the petitioner to occupy the marginal land would affect their right to enjoy their own property, learned Senior Advocate Ms. Jayna Kothari for respondent No.1-original petitioner was justified in contending that the appellants were not parties to the proceedings initially, but they were subsequently joined and that their case was considered by learned Single Judge before allowing the petition in terms of the directions as aforementioned. She was right in further submitting that the lis is essentially between the original petitioner and the BBMP, that the marginal place which was permitted to be occupied by the petitioner belongs to the BBMP and that the appellants have - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:14350-DB WA No. 83 of 2025 no concern as such in respect of the said land the enjoyment whereof by the petitioner as granted by the BBMP. 3.6 Learned Single Judge, in the context, observed in paragraph 7 of the judgment that the appellants do not assert ownership to the extent of 6 feet x 7.9 feet of the marginal land permitted to be occupied by the petitioner and cannot claim even an equitable right therein. It was clarified by learned Single Judge that the BBMP had proposed to frame the Rules for management and that the petitioner, while availing the right to occupy the marginal land, shall abide by the Rules as and when they are finalized. 4. At this stage, learned advocate Mr. M.A. Subramani appearing for the BBMP submitted that the Rules called the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (Estate Management) Rules, 2024 has been framed in exercise of the power under Section 316 read with Sections 66, 67 and 130 of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 and the same were notified in the government Gazette Notification dated 01.01.2025. Copy of the Gazette Notification was produced before the Court. It was stated that the occupation of the petitioner shall be guided by the provisions of the said Rules. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:14350-DB WA No. 83 of 2025 4.1 In this regard, learned advocate for respondent No.1-original petitioner stated that as contemplated in the operative part by the learned Single Judge, the permission to the petitioner was transitory in nature in view that, now, as the said Rules have came into force, the original petitioner will be required to apply under the Rules and if the petitioner makes an application, his application will be considered by the BBMP along with others in accordance with the Rules. 5. No case is made out by the appellants to interfere with the judgment and order of learned Single Judge. The appeal fails and it is dismissed subject to the limited clarification and observations as above. The BBMP shall permit the original petitioner to put up the structure as per the observations and directions of learned Single Judge and if necessary, shall ensure the protective measures. Sd/- (N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE VBS/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1