- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7639 WP No. 4564 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4564 OF 2025 (BDA) BETWEEN: SHRI PRAKASH MALAGI S/O HANUMANTHAPPA MALAGI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO 46, 4TH CROSS ARUNACHAL LAYOUT PAPAREDDY PALYA NAGARABHAVI BENGALURU - 560 072. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. V B SHIVA KUMAR.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATA REP BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPEMENT VIKASA SOUDHA DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (BDA) T CHOWDAIAH ROAD BENGALURU - 560 020. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BENGALURU DEVELOMENT AUTHORITY (BDA) Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7639 WP No. 4564 of 2025 T CHOWDAIAH ROAD BENGALURU - 560 020. 4. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE CORPORATION OFFICES, N R SQUARE J C ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 002 REP BY ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HANUMANTHARAYA LAGALI AGA FOR R1; SRI. B. VACHAN., ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3 SRI. M.A. SUBRAMANI., ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE PROPERTY MENTIONED IN THE SCHEDULE TO THIS WRIT PETITION SITUATED WITHIN THE LIMITS OF BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE AND IS IDENTIFIABLE IN SY.NO.14/2 MALALAGA VILLAGE AND THUS, THE SAID PROPERTY CANNOT BE ORDERED TO BE DEMOLISHED BY THE RESPONDENT-2 AUTHORITIES WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE RULE OF LAW AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7639 WP No. 4564 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Petitioner is before this Court claiming to be the owner in possession of a residential house constructed on the property bearing No.46, katha No.715, Jnanabharathi ward No.129 situated at Mallathalli Village, Yeshwantpura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk measuring East to West 35 feet and North to South 25 feet having purchased the same in terms of deed of sale dated 08.03.2019. 2. It appears that the respondent-BDA has identified certain portion of land in Sy.No.14/2 of Nagarabhavi II Stage, Bangalore North Taluk for the purpose of formation of a layout. It is contended that the northern portion of property of the petitioner allegedly falls within the area so notified/identified by the respondent-BDA. This aspect of the matter has led the petitioner to entertain apprehension of precipitative action being taken by the respondent-BDA against the petitioner and his property referred to above. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of petition seeks directions to respondent-BDA to exclude the property of the petitioner from - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7639 WP No. 4564 of 2025 the area identified for the formation of the Nagarbhavi II Stage layout as noted hereinabove. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-BDA on the hand submits that the matter involves factual complexity with regard to right, title and possession of the petitioner and that of the respondent-BDA. As such, writ petition is not maintainable. He submits that the petitioner is an unauthorised occupant of the portion of the land belonging to the respondent-BDA and respondent-BDA is contemplating initiating of the proceedings under the provisions of The Public Premises (Eviction Of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. Hence seeks for dismissal the petition. 5. Heard and perused the records. 6. From the relief as sought for in the writ petition and from the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties what emanates is petitioner essentially seeking declaration of his right, title, entitlement and protection of his possession, in respect of the portion of his property, which is denied by the respondent-BDA. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7639 WP No. 4564 of 2025 7. In view of the aforesaid controversy, this Court do not see justifiable reason to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner may have to avail the alternate remedy in a properly constituted suit before a Competent Court of law. 8. Nonetheless, since the petitioner is expressing grave apprehension of perceptive actions at the hands of the respondent-BDA, a limited protection is granted to the petitioner and the petition is disposed of with the following directions: ORDER (i) Petitioner is at liberty to avail substantive remedy as provided under law in properly constituted suit before a Competent Court of law, if so advised. (ii). Respondent-BDA shall not precipitate the matter for a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7639 WP No. 4564 of 2025 (iii). This is only to enable the petitioner to avail the substantive remedy as noted hereinabove. It is made clear, the present order under no circumstance come in the way of respondent-BDA in taking such action as contemplated under applicable law after a period of sixty days as noted hereinabove. (iv). It is made clear, the aforesaid order is passed in the peculiar fact circumstances of the case and same shall not be treated as a precedent. No opinion is expressed with regard to the merits of the case either. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49