- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50516 WP No. 15935 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 15935 OF 2022 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: B.M. KAVAL RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960 HAVING ITS COMMUNICATION ADDRESS AT NO.431, 2ND CROSS, INDIRANAGAR 1ST STAGE BANGALORE -560038 (REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT) …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA ROOM NUMBER 436, 4TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001 (REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT) 2. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGAR PALIKE HUDSON CIRCLE, N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU-560002 (REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER) 3. JOINT COMMISSIONER (EAST) BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGAR PALIKE HUDSON CIRCLE, N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU-560002 Report.jceast@rediffmail.com Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50516 WP No. 15935 of 2022 4. N. BHARATHI W/O SURESH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT NO.5, BANU VILLA, B-CROSS, VIJAYA BANK COLONY, BANASWADI, BANGALORE-560043. 5. PURUSHOTTTAM S/O V. KAASI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT 6/4, UDANI LAYOUT, 1ST CROSS, ULSOOR, BANGALORE-560008. 6. N. MADHUSUDHAN S/O P.K. NARAYAN NAIR, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT 52/1, MICHAEL PALYA 3RD CROSS, BANGALORE-560038. RESPONDENT NOS.4 TO 6 ARE IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 12.09.2023 7. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU-560 020. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER 8. BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD, 1ST FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BENGALURU -560009 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. RESPONDENT NOS.7 AND 8 ARE IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 09.01.2024 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. BOPANNA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3; SRI. R. NAGENDRA NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.4 TO 6; - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50516 WP No. 15935 of 2022 SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.7; SRI. B.L.SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.8) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CLEAR ALL THE ILLEGAL ENCROACHMENTS PUT UP ON THE PUBLIC ROAD I.E, AT 1ST CROSS ROAD IS 40 FT. IN WIDTH AND 680 FT. IN LENGTH FROM NORTH TO SOUTH AND CONNECTS TATA INFOTECH ROAD ON THE NORTHERN END AND KRISHNA TEMPLE ROAD ON THE SOUTHERN END SO AS TO PUBLIC CAN MAKE USE OF THE PUBLIC ROAD WITHOUT ANY HINDRANCE AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to clear all the illegal encroachments put up on the public road i.e., 1st Cross Road, which connects Tata Infotech road on the northern end and Krishna Temple road on the southern end so that the public can make use of the road without any hindrance. 2. (i) The petitioner claims to be a society registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. It claims that in the neighbourhood of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50516 WP No. 15935 of 2022 its office, there is a road which is identified as 1st Cross Road and measures 40 feet wide and 680 feet long and connects Tata Infotech road on the northern end and Krishna Temple Road on the southern end. It claims that it came to know that certain portion of the public road was encroached, which resulted in reduction of the width of the road from 40 feet to 30 feet. Likewise, the portion of the road where a drain existed beneath was also encroached. The petitioner claims that this caused problems to the residents of 1st Cross Road, as there is no channel for the free flow of rain water. Many complaints were addressed to the authority, which were of no avail. (ii) Based on one of the representations dated 16.08.2017, the Joint Commissioner (East) had personally inspected the spot on 17.11.2017 and he was satisfied that some miscreants had illegally occupied the public road. He also found that a cattle shed was established in the middle of the 1st Cross Road, which was unauthorized. He also found that a manhole connected to the water supply and sewerage pipelines maintained by the Bengaluru Water Supply and Sewage Board (BWSSB) was also encroached upon, resulting in obstruction of free flow of water and sewerage. The Joint Commissioner - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50516 WP No. 15935 of 2022 therefore, ordered to initiate process of demolishing the encroachment. The petitioner therefore, claims that the respondents are under a duty to maintain public street but have not taken any steps thereafter to implement recommendation made by the Joint Commissioner. (iii) The petitioner is therefore, seeks for a direction to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to clear illegal encroachments. 3. During the pendency of this writ petition, the respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6 were impleaded, who purportedly were the encroachers of the portion of the road. 4. (i) The respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6 have filed elaborate statement of objections inter alia contending that they are in possession of portion of the property having lawfully purchased or having lawfully procured through valid documents. They also contended that a resident in the same road had filed a suit in O.S.No.10317/2006 contending that the portion occupied by the respondent No.4 and one Mr. Denny @ Swami Kannu was part of the road and that in the said suit, officials of the BBMP were also made parties. It is contended that the Trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that no - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50516 WP No. 15935 of 2022 clinching evidence was produced to establish the existence of the road and/or that the defendants in the suit had encroached the portion of the road. (ii) They, therefore, contend that the claim of the petitioner that there is a road and that respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6 have encroached on the road, is without any basis. They also contend that a proceeding is now initiated before the Land Grabbing Court and that all issues are at large before the Land Grabbing Court and therefore, no direction can be issued to the respondents in this writ petition to conduct any proceedings as the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) is also a party before the Land Grabbing Court. They contend that a full- fledged enquiry would be conducted before the Land Grabbing Court and all issues would be thrashed out. They also contended that they are in lawful possession of the properties and this Court cannot undertake a voyage into the disputed questions of fact in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6 reiterated the above contentions. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50516 WP No. 15935 of 2022 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 do not dispute the fact that the proceedings are now pending before the Land Grabbing Court and that the issue whether the respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6 are lawful owners of the property, is at large before the Land Grabbing Court. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 6. 8. The petitioner has approached this Court with a grievance that there is some encroachment on a road and that such encroachment is affecting the general public. The petitioner is a resident welfare association and therefore, it has the necessary locus to file a writ petition compelling the respondents to take action. However, after going through the contentions urged by the respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6 in this writ petition, this Court is of the opinion that there are several disputed questions of fact which cannot be gone into in - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50516 WP No. 15935 of 2022 proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As it not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that proceedings are pending before the Land Grabbing Court, it is appropriate that the petitioner is also relegated before the Land Grabbing Court so that all issues of fact and law could be thrashed out before the Land Grabbing Court, which is empowered not only to take action against the land grabbers but also to recover possession of the grabbed land. This Court hopes that the Land Grabbing Court would not only take action against the encroachers but also take steps to recover possession of the property that belongs to the State Government, if it is found that the respondents before it do not have any title to occupy the property belonging to the BBMP or the State Government. In that view of the matter, no directions can be issued to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in this writ petition to consider the representation of the petitioner. 9. It is open for the petitioner to approach the Land Grabbing Court and file necessary application for impleading. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50516 WP No. 15935 of 2022 10. Hence, the Writ Petition stands disposed off on the above terms. Consequently, all applications including I.A.No.1/2025 which was ordered to be taken up along with the main writ petition stand disposed off. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR - para 1 to 4(i) SMA - para 4(ii) till the end List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13