- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23651 WP No. 17653 of 2022 C/W WP No. 9234 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 17653 OF 2022 (LB-BMP) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 9234 OF 2023 (LB-BMP) IN W.P.No.17653/2022 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. UMA DEVI W/O H.N. ASWATHA NARAYAN AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS 2. SMT. PAVANA SANJAY W/O SANJAY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT NO.67 DUO RESIDENCY, NEAR JAKKUR AERODOME YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560064. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MITHUN .G.A, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N R SQUARE, BENGALURU-560002. 2. THE ASST REVENUE OFFICER KODIGEHALLI SUB DIVISION BBMP, SAHAKARANAGAR 9TH MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560092. Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23651 WP No. 17653 of 2022 C/W WP No. 9234 of 2023 3. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER KODIGEHALLI SUB DIVISION BBMP, BENGALURU-560092. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAGADEESHWARA .N.R, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICES DATED 01.08.2022 ANNEXURE-A ISSUED BY R2 AND NOTICE DATED 24.05.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-F ISSUED BY R2 AND ETC. IN W.P.No.9234/2023 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. UMA DEVI W/O H.N. ASWATHA NARAYAN AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS 2. SMT. PAVANA SANJAY W/O SANJAY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT NO.67 DUO RESIDENCY NEAR JAKKUR AERODOME, YELAHANKA BANGALORE-560064. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MITHUN .G.A, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N R SQUARE, BENGALURU-560002. 2. THE ASST REVENUE OFFICER KODIGEHALLI SUB DIVISION BBMP, SAHAKARANAGAR - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23651 WP No. 17653 of 2022 C/W WP No. 9234 of 2023 9TH MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560092. 3. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER KODIGEHALLI SUB DIVISION BBMP, BENGALURU-560092. 4. REGIONAL COMMISSIONER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY BENGALURU DIVISION BENGALURU-560 027. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.B. MONESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 RO R3; SRI. H.K. KENCHE GOWDA, AGA FOR R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICES DATED 05.04.2023 BEARING CASE NO. MUN/RP 08/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-A ISSUED BY R4 AND ETC. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER These two petitions are filed assailing the impugned notice under Section 134 of the Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 (BBMP Act). The respondents in both the petitions are asserting that petitioners are laying a claim over a portion of the designated park area on the strength of the sale deed. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23651 WP No. 17653 of 2022 C/W WP No. 9234 of 2023 These two petitions pertain to the same petitioners and the subject matter involved is also one and the same. Therefore, both the petitions are taken up together. 2. Though, Sri. K.B.Monesh Kumar, learned counsel has strongly resisted, contending that the observations made by the Contempt Court in CCC.No.819/2021 has no relevancy to the case on hand, however, this Court is not inclined to accede to the objections raised by the learned counsel appearing for the BBMP. Para 2 of the order of the contempt court is relevant and for easy reference, the same is extracted which reads as under: "2. An affidavit of compliance dated 17.11.2022 is filed by the Chief Commissioner, BBMP, Bengaluru which clearly depicts that subsequent to the notices issued by the BBMP, the persons to whom the notices were issued, have submitted their documents thereby indicating as to how they have claimed ownership and have acquired title over the properties and some of them have already filed ten suit which are pending adjudication - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23651 WP No. 17653 of 2022 C/W WP No. 9234 of 2023 before Court Hall Nos.26 and 27 morefully described in paragraph-5 of the affidavit. It is further stated in paragraph-7 that apart from issuance of notices and insofar as temporary structures which were situated on the lands in question have been removed as per Annexures-R-23 to R-29. The complainant vide rejoinder, dated 27.10.2022, has indicated that there are certain constructions which are allowed to continue. However, the structures which are indicated in the photographs produced by the complainant and the construction activities therein have been stopped. Thereby, the undertaking given before the learned Single Judge of this Court has been complied with. The said affidavit along with copies of the order sheets of 10 suits filed as per Annexures-R-13 to R-22 and photographs, Annexures-R-23 to 29 are placed on record." 3. The findings recorded in the contempt proceedings have effectively given a quietus to the issues raised in the present writ petitions. While the petitioners assert title to the subject property on the strength of a registered sale deed dated 11.05.2016 (Annexure-E), the respondent–BBMP contends that the petitioner’s vendor - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23651 WP No. 17653 of 2022 C/W WP No. 9234 of 2023 lacked saleable title, as the land in question being a part of Sy.No.15/1 was long ago acquired by the State Government, and the beneficiary of the acquisition was the CQAL Employees House Building Co-operative Society. 4. Upon a careful reading of the observations made in the contempt proceedings, particularly in light of the compliance affidavit filed by the then Chief Commissioner of BBMP, Bengaluru, it is evident that the Contempt Court has directed the parties to pursue their respective claims in the pending civil suit. 5. In the present petitions, although the petitioners had initially instituted a suit for a bare injunction, the records disclose that the suit has subsequently been converted into a comprehensive title suit. By way of amendment, the petitioners have sought a declaration that they are the absolute owners of the property in question. In view of the pendency of this comprehensive suit, and considering that BBMP is a party - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23651 WP No. 17653 of 2022 C/W WP No. 9234 of 2023 to the same, this Court is of the opinion that the issuance of notices by the BBMP in both petitions, is premature and unwarranted. 6. The undertaking given by the then Commissioner of BBMP in the contempt proceedings binds the officials of the BBMP. Once the matter is sub-judice before a competent Civil Court, the BBMP cannot engage in parallel proceedings or continue to issue fresh notices concerning the same subject matter. Accordingly, the impugned notices are liable to be set aside. 7. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petitions are allowed; (ii) The impugned notice dated 01.08.2022 (Annexure-A) and notice dated 24.05.2022 (Annexure-F) in W.P.No.17653/2022, and the notice dated 05.04.2023 (Annexure-A) and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23651 WP No. 17653 of 2022 C/W WP No. 9234 of 2023 notice dated 25.02.2023 (Annexure-A1) in W.P.No.9234/2023, are hereby quashed; (iii) Liberty is reserved to the respondent– BBMP to contest the pending civil suit and to adduce evidence, if any, to establish that the petitioner’s vendor had no saleable title and that the entire extent of land was the subject matter of acquisition proceedings; (iv) All rival contentions are left open to be adjudicated by the competent Civil Court in the pending suit. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 1