- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29334-DB WA No. 629 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT APPEAL NO. 629 OF 2023 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. SRI.R.VASANTH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, S/O LATE B. RAJA RAO, 2. SMT. R. VATSALA AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS, D/O LATE B. RAJA RAO 3. SRI. R. DWARAKNATH AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, S/O LATE B. RAJA RAO 4. SRI. R. CHANCHAL KUMAR AGED 75 YEARS, S/O LATE B. RAJA RAO SL.NO.1 TO 4 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER, M/S N.R GREENWOOD CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR.C. SRIDHAR, NO.396, 3RD FLOOR, KHM BLOCK, 84 (JUDGES COLONY) GANGANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 032. Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29334-DB WA No. 629 of 2023 5. M/S N.R GREENWOOD CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. C. SRIDHAR, NO. 396, 3RD FLOOR, KHM BLOCK, 84 (JUDGES COLONY) GANGANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 032 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. VIVEK SUBBA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. PURUSHOTHAMAN K, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 002. 2. JOINT COMMISSIONER (SOUTH) BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (SOUTH) 9TH MAIN ROAD, 9TH CROSS JAYANAGAR 2ND BLOCK BENGALURU - 560 011 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ADMINISTRATION) BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (SOUTH) 9TH MAIN ROAD, 9TH CROSS JAYANAGAR 2ND BLOCK BENGALURU - 560 011 4. MR. B. N. SURESH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS S/O B.N NANJAPPA R/A NO. 53/1, KRISHNA RAJENDRA ROAD BASAVANAGUDI BANGALORE - 560 004 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.V MURALIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R3) VIDE ORDER DATED 09.06.2025, SRI. AJAY KADKOL, ADVOCATE FOR R4) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29334-DB WA No. 629 of 2023 THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.04.2023, PASSED IN W.P. No. 18457/2022 (LB. BMP), BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT, AND ORDER WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING CONSEQUENTLY ANNEXURE-A IN THE WRIT PETITION AND FURTHER PROCEEDINGS BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER IN REVIEW PETITION VA.JA(D)KR/PR/09/2020-21. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.18457/2022 dated 17.04.2023. 2. It is submitted by the learned Senior counsel for the appellants that the notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner at Annexure-A had been challenged on two grounds. One of the grounds was that the Assistant Commissioner who issued notice on 18.08.2022 did not have the jurisdiction to consider the question of cancellation of amalgamation of khata or to pass orders. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29334-DB WA No. 629 of 2023 3. It is further contended that the notice issued to the petitioner at Annexure-A states that the amalgamation of khata which had been set-aside by this Court in Annexure-N judgment. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that what was set-aside by this Court in Annexure-N judgment was the cancellation of amalgamation of khata No.52 as is evident from the operative portion of Annexure-N judgment. 4. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that in the judgment under appeal, the learned Single Judge has, in paragraph No.14, stated as follows: “14. A perusal of the above would indicate that this Court has indeed set aside the amalgamation of Khata No.52 and restrained the petitioners from putting up any construction in the area identified by the respondent No.2 as a road. Thus, the notice does not suffer from any misinterpretation, as alleged by the petitioners.” 5. It is submitted that this is an erroneous statement since this Court had set-aside the cancellation - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29334-DB WA No. 629 of 2023 of amalgamation of khata and that the writ petitioner/appellant would be put to prejudice if the said observation is not corrected. 6. Learned Senior counsel for the BBMP submits that there was an order of delegation of powers on 12.10.2022 empowering the Joint Commissioner to consider the issues of amalgamation and cancellation of khata. 7. It is further contended that the order at Annexure-N had been correctly understood by the BBMP as is evident from the documents produced along with objections filed to I.A. filed in the writ appeal. It is submitted that the statement in Annexure-A was a mistake committed by the Assistant Commissioner, who communicated the notice for the hearing to the appellant. 8. It is submitted that the Joint Commissioner had specifically found that the direction of the High Court was that the impugned order insofar as it relates to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29334-DB WA No. 629 of 2023 cancellation of amalgamation of khata No.52 stands set- aside and it is on that basis notice was issued and objections called for. 9. Having considered the contentions advanced, we are of the opinion that in the light of the clear findings in Annexure-N judgment, the finding at paragraph No.14 of the judgment under appeal was factually incorrect, the same is corrected. It is made clear that the direction in Annexure-N judgment amounted to quashing of the order of cancellation of amalgamation of khata in respect of khata No.52. The observation in Annexure-A by the Assistant Commissioner, which the learned counsel appearing for the BBMP submits was a mistaken, shall also stand set-aside. 10. Orders shall be passed in accordance with law, as directed by this court, by the appropriate authority within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. All questions on facts are left open to be decided by the appropriate authority. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29334-DB WA No. 629 of 2023 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the submission made by the learned Senior counsel for the appellant, the imposition of costs is also set-aside. In view of disposal of the appeal, I.A.No.2/2023 does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of. SD/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25