- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6538-DB WA No. 1048 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. N.V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I. ARUN WRIT APPEAL NO. 1048 OF 2024 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. P PRAVEENA KUMARI AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT 50/1, SRINIVASA NILAYA NEAR OLD KSVK SCHOOL CHANNASANDRA KADUGODI POST BANGALORE-560067 …APPELLANT (BY SMT. P PRAVEENA KUMARI, PARTY-IN-PERSON) AND: 1. CHIEF COMMISSIONER, BBMP BRUHAT MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP) BANGALORE-560002 2. COMMISSIONER (BBMP) MAHADEVAPURA ZONE BRUHAT BENGALURU PALIKE (BBMP) HUDSON CIRCLE BANGALORE-560001 Digitally signed by VASANTHAKUMARY B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6538-DB WA No. 1048 of 2024 3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BBMP BBMP, WHITEFIELD SUB-DIVISION WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU-560066 4. C S SRINIVASA R/AT NO.50/1, SRINIVASA BUILDING NEAR OLD KSVK SCHOOL CHANNASANDRA KADUGODI POST BENGALURU-560067 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K V BATHE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO 3; SRI K N SHIVAREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-4) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED ON I.A.NO.2/2024 IN W.P.NO.2993/2024 DATED 10.04.2024 BY LEARND SINGLE JUDGE AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FOR IMPLEADMENT AND ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO BE ARRAYED AS A PARTY RESPONDENT IN W.P.NO.2993/2024. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6538-DB WA No. 1048 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA) Heard learned appellant-party-in-person Smt. P. Praveena Kumari, learned advocate Mr. K.V. Bathe Gowda for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned advocate Mr. K.N. Shivareddy for respondent No.4. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 10.04.2024 passed by learned Single Judge on Interim Application No.2 of 2024 which was an application for impleadment filed by the appellant herein. It was filed in the proceedings of Writ Petition No.2993 of 2024. 3. The original petitioner had filed the petition challenging the order of the respondent-the Chief Commissioner dated 12.01.2024 passed in Appeal No.70 of 2023 under Section 253 of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020. From the facts, it - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6538-DB WA No. 1048 of 2024 appears that the petitioner has constructed a building of multi- residential units on the land. 3.1 The applicant, who seeks to implead herself, had filed a complaint alleging that there are deviations in the sanctioned plan. The complaint proceedings culminated into the aforesaid appeal. 3.2 It further transpires that the petitioner is the landlord whereas, the impleading applicant is a tenant. The petitioner- landlord has initiated eviction proceedings. The applicant does not dispute that she is a tenant. 4. The contention of the petitioner-landlord is that she cannot assert any interest in the property and has no interest in the subject matter of appeal which is between the petitioner and the authorities of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) whereas, according to the applicant, she is affected by the construction and wants to initiate separate proceedings. It is the case that she is in possession of certain documents which show that the construction is contrary to the sanctioned plan. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6538-DB WA No. 1048 of 2024 5. As noted earlier, the applicant is only a tenant. The dispute in the writ petition is challenge to the order in appeal under Section 253 of the Act of 2020. It is essentially a dispute between the petitioner and the authorities. Looking to the status of the impleading applicant vis-à-vis the landlord and vis-à-vis the property, it cannot be said that the applicant is a necessary or even a proper party. 5.1 The decision of this court in Major K.A. Mathew (Retd.) Vs. S. Ramesh and others [2016 (1) AKR 409] supports the aforesaid view. It was the case of impleadment of the party in the appeal which was preferred by the private party against the order passed by the BBMP for demolition of a portion of the building on the ground that the building was contrary to the sanctioned plan. It was stated by the court that the lis was between the private party and the BBMP only. The petitioner, though he was the original complainant, was held by the court not to be necessary party. Mere apprehension on part of the party that the BBMP would not place all facts before the court, could not be a ground to implead the party. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6538-DB WA No. 1048 of 2024 6. Thus, the subject matter of appeal before learned Single Judge is a challenge to the order passed by the competent authority under Section 253 of the Act of 2020. It cannot be said that the applicant, in capacity of a tenant of a unit in the property, is an interested party in any manner to permit her to be impleaded. As stated above, the lis lies between the petitioner and the BBMP. 6.1 The order passed by learned Single Judge rejecting the prayer and dismissing the interim application is legal and proper. No interference is called for. 7. The appeal is dismissed as meritless. In view of dismissal of the appeal, the interlocutory applications will not survive. They are accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE BKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 86