- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5436 WP No. 31377 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 31377 OF 2024 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. SMT NAGARATHNAMMA M W/O.LATE SRINIVASA.H AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 2. SRI. RAGHAVENDRA S S/O. SRINIVASA H AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 3. SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR S S/O. SRINIVASA H AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 4. SRI. PUNEETHAKUMAR S S/O. SRINIVASA H AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS PETITIONERS 1 TO 4 ARE R/AT HOUSE LIST NO.136/2. NEW NO.171, NEAR BELLANDUR POST OFFICE, BELLANDUR, BENGALURU-560103. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. D GANGADHARA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N R SQUARE BENGALURU-560002 Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5436 WP No. 31377 of 2024 2. THE ASST. REVENUE OFFICER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, VARTHUR, BENGALURU – 560 087 3. SRI. RAMESH, S/O. GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, 4. SMT. YASHODAMMA, W/O. GOPAL AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 ARE R/AT 366/1, NEAR BELLANDUR POST OFFICE BELLANDUR BENGALURU – 560 103 5. SMT MATHA S W/O NARAYANAPPA D/O LATE CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 6. SMT SAROJAMMA W/O MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESPONDENTS 5 & 6 ARE R/AT HOUSE NO 51, NEW NO 366 BELLANDUR VILLAGE, BANGALORE-560103. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 SRI. MURALIDARA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5 R6 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R1 AND R2 TO DEMOLITION OF THE UN- AUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION AT THE SCHEDULE HOUSE 1ST PROPERTY BEARING NO. 136/2. (171/NEW) AND DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENTS TO REMOVAL OF THE UN-AUTHORIZED - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5436 WP No. 31377 of 2024 CONSTRUCTION AND PERMIT THE PETITIONERS TO ENJOYMENT OF THEIR PREMISES AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER The petitioners filed this writ petition for issue of a mandamus to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to demolish the un-authorised construction in the house list property bearing No.136/2, (171 New). 2. It is the case of the petitioners that respondent Nos.3 to 6 are carrying on construction activities on the property which does not belong to them, but which belongs to the petitioners. It is their contention that the construction is being carried on even without securing a sanction plan. 3. During the pendency of this writ petition, this Court directed filing of a status report by the concerned Engineer, and accordingly, the concerned Engineer has filed a report on 10.12.2024 stating that, the property on - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5436 WP No. 31377 of 2024 which construction is being put up is a plot, which is less than 500 sq.ft, and therefore, does not require a sanction plan. 4. On a reading of this report, the question of entertaining the plea of the petitioners that the structure is unauthorized, in this petition would not arise simply because no plan is required. 5. It is also admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have already instituted a suit in O.S.No.4306/2024 seeking not only a declaration of title but also a mandatory injunction to demolish the structure. 6. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 points that in the said suit, an interim order was granted, but was subsequently vacated. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have already preferred an appeal and the same is yet to be considered. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5436 WP No. 31377 of 2024 8. Be that as it may, the above fact indicates that the petitioners are already before the Civil Court seeking for an order of declaration and also for a mandatory injunction. It is therefore obvious that, if the petitioners succeed in the said suit, construction put up by the respondent Nos.3 to 6 will have to be necessarily brought down. 9. In my view, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners and also to respondents to urge their contentions regarding their entitlement to the land in question before the suit pending in O.S.No.4306/2024. 10. Subject to the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE