- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26133 WP No. 12758 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 12758 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. MANJUNATH .N S/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.19, 8TH CROSS CHOWDAPPA LAYOUT, ANAND NAGAR HOSAKEREHALLI, BSK III STAGE BENGALURU-560085. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ARUN ASHOK GADAG, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE CORPORATION CIRCLE BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER SOUTH ZONE, JAYANAGAR BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BENGALURU - 560011. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER GANESH MANDIR SUB-DIVISION BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE KUMARSWAMY LAYOUT BENGALURU - 560078. Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26133 WP No. 12758 of 2025 4. SMT. H. SUVARNA W/O. THIMMARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.5/1B, AMRUTHA NILAYA 1ST MAIN, NARAYAN NAGARA DODDAKALLASANDRA UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU-560 062. 5. SHIVAGANGA HOMES HAVING ITS OFFICE AT FLAT NO.FF5, 4TH FLOOR SHIVAGANGA SM SYMPHONY SUBRAMANYAPURA POST, AREHALLI BENGALURU - 560061. REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI. L. HEMASHEKHAR S/O LAKSHMINARAYANA LANKIPALLI …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BATHE GOWDA .K.V, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. SUNIL NARAYAN NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R5) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT R1 TO R3 TO IMMEDIATELY TAKE STEPS TO STOP AND DEMOLISH THE ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION BEING CARRIED OUT OVER SCHEDULED PROPERTY IN VIOLATION OF THE SETBACK RULES PRESCRIBED UNDER THE BBMP ACT AND THE BUILDING BY LAWS AND TOWN AND COUNTY PLANNING ACT AND ETC. 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 The present writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondents No.1 to 3 to take - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26133 WP No. 12758 of 2025 immediate and appropriate action to stop the ongoing construction undertaken by private respondent No.5 over the schedule property, and to initiate steps for demolition of the alleged illegal construction said to be in violation of the setback norms prescribed under the BBMP Act, the Building Bye-laws, and the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act. 2. This Court, by order dated 27.06.2025, while taking note of the petitioner’s apprehension that the ongoing construction by respondent No.5 is seriously prejudicing the petitioner’s rights over the schedule property, and upon a perusal of paragraph 4 of the writ petition, wherein the petitioner claims that the property in question is joint family ancestral property and that a partition suit in O.S.No.410/2020 is currently pending, was constrained to direct the official respondents to conduct a spot inspection. The said direction was issued to ascertain whether the construction being carried out was in violation of the sanctioned building plan and licence, and to submit - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26133 WP No. 12758 of 2025 a report to this Court on or before the next date of hearing. 3. In compliance with the said order dated 27.06.2025, respondents No.1 to 3 have submitted a report indicating that the construction undertaken by respondent No.5 is indeed in violation of the sanctioned building licence and approved plan. The nature and extent of the deviations have been specifically detailed in the said inspection report. 4. Learned counsel appearing for private respondents No.4 and 5 has filed a detailed statement of objections opposing the writ petition. It is contended that the present petition has been instituted with malafide intent, solely with a view to harass private respondents No.4 and 5, and that the petition deserves to be dismissed on that ground alone. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for petitioner and the standing counsel appearing for - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26133 WP No. 12758 of 2025 respondents 1 to 3 and the counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5. 6. Upon a comprehensive examination of the records, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner cannot be treated as an aggrieved party so as to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The mere pendency of a partition suit cannot, by itself, confer locus standi upon the petitioner to maintain this writ petition. In fact, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner conceded that the petitioner is not in possession of the schedule property and is, in fact, the owner of a separate site located opposite to Site No.15, the site in question where private respondents No.4 and 5 are presently undertaking construction. 7. In order to counter the petitioner’s claim, private respondents have today filed a memo along with a copy of a joint memo filed in O.S.No.1355/2003 by the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26133 WP No. 12758 of 2025 petitioner’s father. A perusal of the said joint memo reveals that the petitioner’s father had expressly recorded no objection to the issuance of khata in favour of various site owners, thereby acknowledging the legality of prior alienations. Significantly, Site No.15 now the subject matter of the present writ petition finds mention in the said joint memo. Placing reliance on this document, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.4 and 5 submits that the petitioner, despite having instituted a fresh partition suit including Site No.15, is attempting to assail the construction being carried out by the private respondents even though he has no direct or immediate legal grievance in relation to the subject property. 8. This Court, upon a further scrutiny of the materials placed on record, is of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to maintain the present writ petition merely on the ground of alleged violations of the building licence or setback norms by respondents No.4 and 5. If, as asserted, Site No.15 forms part of the subject - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26133 WP No. 12758 of 2025 matter of a pending civil suit, the appropriate remedy for the petitioner would have been to approach the competent civil Court and seek appropriate interim relief. Instead, the petitioner has chosen to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court, which, in the present facts and circumstances, is clearly not maintainable. 9. Be that as it may, in view of the fact that respondent No.3 has already conducted a spot inspection pursuant to the directions issued by this Court on 27.06.2025 and has submitted a report pointing out deviations from the sanctioned plan, this Court deems it appropriate to direct respondent No.3 to proceed in accordance with law. Respondent No.3 shall initiate appropriate proceedings under Section 248 of the BBMP Act, 2020, based on the findings in the inspection report and after affording due opportunity to the concerned parties. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26133 WP No. 12758 of 2025 10. In light of the above observations and having regard to the material on record, this Court is of the view that no further adjudication is required in this writ petition. 11. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3 to take necessary action in accordance with law, as indicated above. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11