- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28274 WP No. 922 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.922 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: SRI.PRAKASH S/O SRI. RANGARAJU M AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT NO.387-1, 4TH CROSS SRIGANDANAGAR BENGALURU-560 091 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVARAMA BHAT O, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER JHANSI LAKSHMIBAI ROAD MYSURU-570 005 2. SRI.M.RAMESH S/O SRI. S.MADAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT NO.3758 BASAPPA ROAD VEERANNAGERE LAKSHKAR MOHALLA MYSURU-570 001 3. SRI.DHANANJAYA M S/O SRI. MARISWAMY N Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28274 WP No. 922 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT NO.1899, 1ST CROSS SEEBAIAH ROAD DEVARAJA MOHALLA MYSURU-570 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.POONAM PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R.1; SRI.BHEEMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R.3 R.3 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R1 TO ALLOT AN ALTERNATIVE SITE TO THE R2 IN LIEU OF THE NON- EXISTENCE OF SCHEDULE-A SITE TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE AND ENABLE THE PETITIONER TO PROCEED WITH THE CONSTITUTION 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 seeking for the following reliefs:- "(i) Direct the 1st respondent to allot an alternative site to the 2nd Respondent in lieu of the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28274 WP No. 922 of 2025 non-existence of Schedule-A site to resolve the dispute and enable the petitioner to proceed with the construction. (ii) Issue a Writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to provide a protection with the help of the jurisdictional Police so as to enable the petitioner to proceed with the construction on the basis of his Registered Sale Deed dated 31.03.2022 vide Annexure-B. (iii) Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of this case in the interest of justice and equity." 2. The petitioner and his vendor, namely respondent No.3, both trace their title to an allotment made by respondent No.1 – the Planning Authority. Respondent No.3 claims to be the lawful owner and in possession of Site No.251/A, measuring 12.00 meters, by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 10.12.2019, executed in his favour pursuant to an auction conducted by respondent No.1 – MUDA. Subsequently, respondent No.3 executed a registered sale deed dated 31.03.2022 in favour of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28274 WP No. 922 of 2025 petitioner, conveying the said site. On the other hand, private respondent No.2 also asserts title over the very same site based on a registered sale deed dated 03.01.2005. It is submitted that respondent No.2 has instituted a comprehensive civil suit in O.S. No.1515/2024 seeking a declaration of title based on the sale deed executed by MUDA, along with a prayer for possession, and the said suit is presently pending adjudication before the Competent Civil Court. 3. The petitioner, however, seeks to persuade this Court to grant the reliefs as prayed for, on the premise that respondent No.1 – MUDA has already conducted an enquiry and has resolved to refund the sital value to respondent No.2. Relying on this resolution, the petitioner contends that MUDA has effectively acknowledged his title, and therefore, he is entitled to a direction from this Court to allot an alternate site to respondent No.2 and to grant necessary protection to enable him to complete the construction on the subject property. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28274 WP No. 922 of 2025 4. However, in view of the nature of the reliefs sought by the petitioner and the pendency of a comprehensive civil suit filed by respondent No.2, the primary relief sought in the writ petition cannot be granted at this stage. The question of title and possession is the subject matter of adjudication before the Civil Court, and therefore, this Court refrains from expressing any opinion on the same. 5. Respondent No.2 is asserting title to the subject property based on a registered sale deed executed by MUDA in the year 2005, whereas the petitioner traces his title through respondent No.3, who is the original allottee under an allotment made by MUDA in the year 2019. It is relevant to note that the allotment in favour of respondent No.2 is of an earlier origin, i.e., the year 1997. Thus, competing claims to the same property have arisen based on two distinct allotments made by the same authority at different points in time. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28274 WP No. 922 of 2025 6. In view of the complex and disputed questions of fact involved, this Court is of the considered view that no writ of mandamus can be issued to respondent No.1 directing allotment of an alternate site to respondent No.2. Issuing such a direction would amount to prejudging the rights of respondent No.2 and would effectively render the comprehensive suit filed by him in O.S. No.1515/2024 infructuous. Such a course is impermissible in law. The petitioner has not demonstrated any enforceable legal right to seek a writ of mandamus in this regard. 7. Insofar as the second prayer is concerned, the same is wholly misconceived. It is rather troubling that the petitioner appears to have been ill-advised to seek injunctive relief in the form of protection against dispossession or interference through a writ petition. Such reliefs, which are in the nature of an injunction, cannot be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If the petitioner apprehends interference with his possession or obstruction to his construction activities, the proper - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28274 WP No. 922 of 2025 remedy lies in approaching the competent Civil Court by instituting a suit for appropriate relief. Respondent No.1 – MUDA, being a planning authority, is not vested with powers to extend protection to individuals against private interference. In the present case, considering that a civil suit is already pending between the parties, this Court finds it appropriate to direct both parties to pursue their respective remedies in the pending suit. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed off. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2