- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11932 WP No. 5848 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 5848 OF 2025 (BDA) BETWEEN: SMT. MEGHA B.R, W/O DEEPAK RAMAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 79, SHREESHA, HB SAMAJ ROAD, NEAR BASAVANGUDI POST OFFICE, BASAVANGUDI, BENGALURU - 560 004. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. ANUPARNA BORDOLOI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE - 560 020, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 2. THE SECRETARY AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE - 560 020. 3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER EAST DIVISION, BDA, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE - 560 020. Digitally signed by KRISHNAPPA LAXMI YASHODA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11932 WP No. 5848 of 2025 4. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 002. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER (R4 DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED 06.03.2025) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE 20.09.2024 BEARING NO. BEM.AA.PRA/KAVI/103/2024-25 ISSUED BY THE R-1 AS PER ANNX-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER The petitioner is aggrieved by the action initiated by the respondent-BDA, more particularly, the impugned notices at Annexures-A and B issued by the 2nd respondent-The Secretary and the Competent Authority of the Bangalore Development Authority invoking the provisions of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupiers) Act, 1974. It is the contention of the petitioner that such a notice invoking the provisions of - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11932 WP No. 5848 of 2025 the Act, 1974, could not be issued by the 2nd respondent, since the petitioner is the owner of the property and the property does not belong to the Bangalore Development Authority. Moreover, the petitioner's father, Shri K.T. Rajashekara, had filed a suit in O.S.No.5220/2020 against the respondent-BDA seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the Bangalore Development Authority and all persons acting under the authority from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property. Unfortunately, the petitioner's father passed away on 21.05.2021, and the suit was dismissed for non- prosecution on 02.08.2024. However, the petitioner has filed a miscellaneous petition in Misc.No.129/2025 seeking to set aside the order of dismissal of the suit and for restoration of the same. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also draw support from a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kaikhosrou (Chick) Kavasji Framji vs. Union of India and Another reported in (2019) 20 SCC - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11932 WP No. 5848 of 2025 705, where it is held that under the Public Premises Act in the event of any notice being issued for eviction of public premises, if the title of the persons issuing notice is disputed, then in such case, the same would have to be decided by a Civil Court. 3. Learned Counsel Sri. Krishna, appearing for the respondent-BDA, seeks to contend that the claim of the petitioner is frivolous. Merely because a suit for permanent injunction is filed, it does not mean that the Bangalore Development Authority has no title over the property in question. It is submitted that the lands in Survey No.13 of Madiwala Village were notified and acquired by a preliminary notification issued on 26.11.1959 and a final notification issued on 28.09.1965 and the award has been deposited in the name of all the registered kathedars. However, although the petitioner claims that her father purchased the property bearing municipal corporation No.14/6, situated at I 'A' main road, Maruthinagara, Madiwala bearing PID.No.66-56-14/6 measuring 3,150 sq. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11932 WP No. 5848 of 2025 ft. under registered sale deed dated 13.04.2007. Nevertheless, it is contended in the writ petition that the site in question has been formed in Survey No.13/1 of Madiwala Village. Nothing in respect of the survey number is found in the sale deed. Learned counsel would also submit, while pointing out to the written statement filed at the hands of the respondent-BDA as a defendant in the suit, that survey No.13/1 is a portion of survey No.13, which has been notified and acquired for the benefit of the Bangalore Development Authority. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent-BDA and on perusing the petition papers, this Court is of the considered opinion that there exists disputed questions of title. The petitioner's father has purchased the property in question under a registered sale deed, as noticed herein above. The petitioner's father has already filed a suit, although for a permanent injunction restraining the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11932 WP No. 5848 of 2025 respondent-BDA. The petitioner is entitled to protect her possession of the property in accordance with law. 5. Having regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is also clear that when once the person against whom a notice is issued invoking the provisions of the Public Premises Act raises a dispute stating that the land belongs to him or her and not to the authority was issued the notice, then it becomes a disputed question of title. The estate officer functioning under the provisions of the Public Premises Act cannot decide such disputed questions of title. The disputed questions of title, can be decided by a competent Civil Court and not by the estate officer. 6. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned notice issued by the 2nd respondent-Secretary of the BDA, cannot be permitted to proceed under the provisions of the Karnataka Public Premises Act, 1974. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:11932 WP No. 5848 of 2025 7. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned notices at Annexures-A and B issued by the 2nd respondent are hereby quashed and set aside. Liberty is also reserved to the respondent-BDA to pursue its remedy before a competent Civil Court. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE rv List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8 CT: BHK