- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27230 WP No. 4359 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.4359 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. SRI.S NARENDRA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS S/O LATE SHANTHILAL LALJI 2. SMT.N.KALPANA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS W/O SRI.S.NARENDRA KUMAR BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.155/9/2, 1ST FLOOR 1ST STAGE, 5TH CROSS OKALIPURAM OPP:JAIN TEMPLE BENGALURU - 560021 (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT IS NOT CLAIMED) …PETITIONERS (BY SRI.NITISH K.N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.V.NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER N.R.SQUARE BENGALURU - 560002 2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27230 WP No. 4359 of 2025 WEST ZONE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BENGALURU - 560001 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER GANDINAGAR WARD NO.95 GOODSHED ROAD BENGALURU - 560001 4. THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER GANDINAGAR SUB-DIVISION BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BENGALURU - 560001 5. SRI. DINESH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O M.C.MUDDUKRISHNAIAH NO.36/2, SRIRAMAPURAM KRANTHIKAVI SARVAGNA ROAD CHELUVAIAH COMPOUND BENGALURU - 560021 6. SRI. T.VELU AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O SRI.THANGAVELU R/AT NO.72/B, 14/1 14TH CROSS, 9TH MAIN ROAD KALAPPA BLOCK BENGALURU - 560021 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.MONESH KUMAR K B, ADVOCATE FOR R.1 TO R.4; SRI.PARAMESWARAPPA C, ADVOCATE FOR R.5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE SANCTION PLAN AT ANNX-E DTD 30.12.2024 ISSUED BY THE R-2 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27230 WP No. 4359 of 2025 ASST DIRECTOR BEARING SITE NO.36/1-2 SITUATED AT SRIRAMPURAM KRANTHIKAVI SARVAGNA ROAD, CHELUVAIAH COMPOUND OKALIPURAM EXTENTION BANGALORE-560001 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 captioned writ petition is filed assailing the sanction plan dated 30.12.2024 obtained by private respondent No.6 as per Annexure-E. Consequently, the petitioner is also seeking quashing of the Uttara Patra dated 04.01.2024 issued by respondent No.4 as per Annexure-D and the prohibition order restraining the private respondent No.6 from putting up construction on the property bearing Municipal No.36/1-2 situated at Sriramapuram, Kranthikavi Sarvagna Road, Cheluvaiah Compound, Okalipuram Extension, Bengaluru. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27230 WP No. 4359 of 2025 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the respondent - BBMP and learned counsel appearing for the private respondent Nos.5 and 6. 3. On a specific query posed by this Court as to whether any civil proceedings are pending between the parties, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submits that the petitioners have instituted a suit in O.S.No.6234/2012 on the file of the competent civil Court. In the said suit, the petitioners have sought reliefs of declaration, mandatory injunction and perpetual injunction. It is further submitted that the pleadings in the civil suit specifically allege that respondent Nos.5 and 6- private parties have encroached upon the suit schedule property and are attempting to raise unauthorized construction thereon. Thus, the core grievance of the petitioners is not merely one of regulatory violation under municipal law, but one of alleged encroachment and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27230 WP No. 4359 of 2025 trespass affecting title and possession, which is quintessentially a civil dispute. 4. This Court, in a catena of decisions, has consistently held that where an adjoining property owner raises a grievance in respect of construction carried out by a neighbor, allegedly in violation of sanctioned building plans or statutory setback requirements but such construction is confined to the neighbor's own property, the appropriate remedy may lie under writ jurisdiction, particularly where municipal authorities have acted in breach of their regulatory duties. However, in cases where the aggrieved party alleges encroachment onto their own property, thereby affecting their civil rights and title, such issues are best addressed in a civil suit, and not through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 5. In the present case, the petitioners, who are plaintiffs in O.S.No.6234/2012, have not only sought injunctive relief but have also specifically pleaded that the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27230 WP No. 4359 of 2025 construction by respondent Nos.5 and 6 is being undertaken by encroaching onto the petitioners' property. In such circumstances, where the civil suit is pending and includes a prayer for mandatory injunction to remove the alleged encroachment, it would not be appropriate for this Court to exercise writ jurisdiction to quash the building plan sanctioned in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6. The petitioners are at liberty to pursue their remedy before the competent civil Court, which is already seized of the matter. 6. It is always open to the petitioners to press for interim relief by moving appropriate interlocutory applications before the civil Court, which is empowered to take cognizance of the pleadings and the prima-facie materials placed on record. Upon due notice to respondent Nos.5 and 6, the Civil Court can adjudicate the said applications and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. In view of the pendency of the civil suit and the nature of reliefs already sought therein, parallel invocation - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27230 WP No. 4359 of 2025 of writ jurisdiction in respect of the same subject matter does not arise. 7. In view of the pending civil suit and the reliefs already sought therein, the writ petition is liable to be disposed of with a direction to the Trial Court to expedite consideration and disposal of the interlocutory applications filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 8. Learned counsel appearing for private respondent Nos.5 and 6 has fairly submitted that objections to the said applications have already been filed and that they are ready to address arguments. Recording the said submission, the writ petition is accordingly disposed of. It is made clear that all contentions of the parties are kept open and this order shall not preclude the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27230 WP No. 4359 of 2025 petitioners from raising all grounds available to them before the competent Civil Court. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11