- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22036 WP No. 26170 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 26170 OF 2022 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. Y.S. RAVIKUMAR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, SON OF SRI. Y. SURYANARAYANA SETTY, RESIDING AT NO.1010, 1ST MAIN ROAD, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 040. 2. SRI Y.S. NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, SON OF SRI. Y. SURYANARAYANA SETTY, RESIDING AT NO.1010, 1ST MAIN ROAD, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 040. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. GIRIDHAR S.V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE OFFICE AT N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE-560 002. 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR SUB DIVISION, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE. 3. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR ZONE, Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22036 WP No. 26170 of 2022 BANGALORE-560 098. 4. SRI. H.P. KUMAR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, SON OF PUTTIAH, RESIDING AT NO.108, SRI SHA NIVAS, 16TH CROSS MTS LAYOUT, KENGERI UPANAGARA, BANGALORE-560 060. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN REDDY K.S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI. K.S. NARESH SANTHOSH, ADVOCATE FOR R4; NOTICE NOT ORDERED IN RESPECT OF R3) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO (A) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS, SIMILAR WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NOS.1, 2 AND 3 TO DEMOLISH THE ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION SO PUT UP BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 OVER THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY; (B) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS, SIMILAR WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NOS.1, 2 AND 3 TO TAKE NECESSARY LEGAL ACTION AGAINST THE RESPONDENT NO.4 FOR CREATING FRAUDULENT GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS AND FORGING THE SEAL AND SIGNATURE OF THE RESPONDENT NO.3; (C) COSTS OF THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER In the captioned petition, petitioners are aggrieved by the inaction of respondents 1 to 3 in not taking - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22036 WP No. 26170 of 2022 cognizance of complaint lodged by petitioners evidenced at Annexures- Q1 and Q2. 2. Petitioners' grievance is that despite complaint lodged indicating that respondent No.4 is illegally putting up construction without securing building plan, there is complete inaction on the part of respondents 1 to 3. 3. In the captioned petition, the petitioners have placed reliance on an endorsement issued by respondent No.3, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-R. Referring to the said endorsement, it is contended that although respondent No.4 had obtained an ex parte order of temporary injunction in O.S. No.3694/2021 from the jurisdictional Civil Court, such injunction was secured by relying upon a purported building plan, which according to the petitioners, is fabricated. It is further submitted that the petitioners, who are arrayed as defendants in the said suit, filed an application seeking vacation of the interim order by bringing to the notice of the Civil Court that the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22036 WP No. 26170 of 2022 building plan relied upon by respondent No.4 lacked authenticity. The petitioners assert that the interim injunction was subsequently vacated, and such vacation was upheld by this Court as well as by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for respondent-BBMP, this Court is of the considered view that respondents No.1 to 3 are under a statutory obligation to consider and act upon the complaint lodged by the petitioners. If an allegation of illegal or unauthorized construction is made, the concerned authority is duty- bound to initiate appropriate enquiry, after providing an opportunity of hearing to both the person undertaking construction and the complainant, particularly when it is alleged that construction is being carried out on property not owned by respondent No.4. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22036 WP No. 26170 of 2022 5. In the light of the inaction on the part of the official respondents, this Court is of the opinion that a writ of mandamus is warranted. The endorsement at Annexure-R issued by respondent No.3, which specifically states that no building license or plan sanction has been issued in favour of respondent No.4, lends greater credence to the petitioners' grievance. In view of the serious allegations raised in the complaint evidenced at Annexures-Q and Q1, the BBMP cannot remain a silent spectator. Petitioners, who claim to be the lawful owners of the property, have a legitimate right to seek redressal through the appropriate statutory forum. At the same time, it is open to respondent No.4 to participate in the enquiry process and place on record such documents, including title deeds and sanctioned building plans, as may be necessary to justify the legality of the construction undertaken on the disputed site. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22036 WP No. 26170 of 2022 6. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following:- ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed; (ii) Respondent No. 3 is hereby directed to forthwith take cognizance of the complaint evidenced at annexes-Q and Q1 and after issuing notice to respondent no. 4 shall hold an inquiry strictly adhering to the mandate provided under Section 248 of the BBMP Act and pass appropriate orders. (iii) This exercise shall be accomplished within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. All contentions are kept open. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3