- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37461 WP No. 26577 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 26577 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SHAKUNTALA DEVI W/O KRISHNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS NO.257, 15TH 'C' MAIN HSR LAYOUT, SECTOR-3 BENGALURU-560 102. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MUNIRAJA M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEDHI BENGALURU-560 009. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R.SQUERE, BENGALURU-560 002. 3. THE JOING COMMISSIONER BOMMANAHALLI ZONE Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37461 WP No. 26577 of 2025 BRUHAT BENGALRUU MAHANAGARA PALIKE CMC BUILDING, BEGUR ROAD BOMMANAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 068. 4. THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER HSR SUB DIVISION BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BEHIND BDA COMPLEX, HSR 6TH SECTOR 9TH MAIN, 14TH A CROSS, HSR LAYOUT BENGALURU-560 102. 5. SRI. N.G.MOHAN KUMAR S/O GOPAL REDDY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO.322, 28TH MAIN SECTOR-2, HSR LAYOUT BENGALURU-560 102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.K.KENCHEGOWDA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. B.S.KARTHIKEYAN, ADVOCATE R2 TO R4; SRI. HARISH H.V., ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.04.2025 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT JOINT COMMISSIONER OF B.B.M.P IN CASE NO.B.B.M.P./Nya.Vya/PR/24/2024-25 FOR CANCELLATION OF THE KHATA STANDING IN THE NAME OF PETITIONER WITH RESPECT TO PROPERTY NO.109/46/5 MEASURING EAST TO WEST 30 FEET, NORTH TO SOUTH - 120 FEET, IN TOTAL MEASURING 3600 SQ. FT. SITUATED AT GARVEBHAVI PALYA, HONGASANDRA VILLAGE AND DHAKALE, BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, PRESENTLY WHICH COMES UNDER THE BBMP WARD NO.190 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37461 WP No. 26577 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order dated 09.04.2025 passed by respondent no.3 (vide Annexure-A to the writ petition), the present writ petition is filed. 2. Action has been initiated against the petitioner herein by Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to remove certain encroachments alleged to have been made by her on an existing road. There has been also a dispute with regard to khata in respect of the land measuring 30 x 120 which is the subject matter of the writ petition. The khata initially stood in the name of the petitioner herein. Respondent no.5 challenged the same before respondent no.3-Joint Commissioner, BBMP and an order dated 29.08.2024 came to be passed wherein, the khata of the petitioner in respect of 3600.sq.ft. of land has been cancelled. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein preferred W.P.No.27460/2024 and the same came to be partly allowed and the following order has been passed: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37461 WP No. 26577 of 2025 "[A] The petition is allowed-in-part. The impugned Order dated 29.08.2024 [Annexure - A] and Endorsement dated 30.08.2024 [Annexure - B] are quashed restoring the proceedings in BBMP/Nya.Vya/PR/730/2023-24 to the third respondent for re-consideration leaving open all questions for due consideration. [B] The petitioner and the fifth respondent shall appear before the third respondent without further notice on 09.12.2024. [C] The third respondent, after extending all opportunity to the petitioner and the fifth respondent to complete pleadings, shall conclude the proceedings strictly in accordance with law." 3. Subsequent to the order passed in W.P.No.27460/2024, the matter was taken up for hearing by respondent no.3 and the present impugned order is passed. 4. The case of the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed by respondent no.3 without application of mind. The attention of the Court is drawn to the cause title wherein, though respondent no.5 is the appellant, respondent no.3 has treated the petitioner as appellant and respondent no.5 as the respondent and has passed the impugned order - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37461 WP No. 26577 of 2025 dismissing the appeal. The appeal in fact has been filed by respondent no.5 and not by the petitioner. 5. Under the circumstances, one has to conclude that respondent no.3 has passed the impugned order without applying his mind and the same is liable to be set aside. 6. In the meanwhile, learned counsel for BBMP upon instructions submits that action has been initiated against the petitioner for encroaching the public road and the impugned order does not pertain to the same. Attention of the Court is also drawn to the gift deed by which petitioner claims to have become owner of the property. It is submitted that the gift deed itself shows that 3600 sq.ft. of land has been gifted in favour of the petitioner herein by the erstwhile owner and the schedule to the property does not reflect any road. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not produced any document to show how one side of her property presently abuts a road. It is contention of the BBMP that the petitioner is making a claim in respect of the land which is actually not gifted by virtue of a gift deed said to have been executed in her favour. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37461 WP No. 26577 of 2025 7. The aforementioned submissions and the documents produced reveal that the petitioner claims to have become owner of 3600 sq.ft. of land by virtue of a gift deed and the said property is landlocked without any access to road. The dispute pertains as to where the property is actually situated and presently, due to lapse of time and developments that have taken place in the locality whether the property has got access to any road or not. This Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India cannot decide disputed question of facts and it is best left to the civil Court or other adjudicating authorities which have jurisdiction to decide the dispute. 8. In the instant case, admittedly, respondent no.3 has passed the impugned order without application of mind and the same is liable to be set aside. It is open for the contesting parties to produce relevant records and show where the property is actually situated . 9. Hence, the following: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37461 WP No. 26577 of 2025 ORDER i. The impugned order dated 09.04.2025 passed by respondent no.3 (vide Annexure-A to the writ petition) is hereby set aside; ii. The matter is remanded back to respondent no.3. The petitioner and respondent no.5 shall appear before respondent no.3 on 16.10.2025 at 3.00 p.m. without further notice; iii. Petitioner and respondent no.5 are granted liberty to take up all the contentions before respondent no.3; iv. Respondent no.3 shall decide the dispute as expeditiously as possible; v. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. SD/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32