- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45524 WP No. 49699 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 49699 OF 2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: KEPPEL PURAVANKARA DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.21/30, PRESTIGE CRAIG HOUSE, 3RD FLOOR, CRAIG PARK LAYOUT, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001 REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER PURAVANKARA PROJECTS LIMITED, (PRESENTLY PURAVANKARA LIMITED) REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY AND GENERAL MANAGER LEGAL B.PRAVEEN KUMAR. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASHANTH S, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ANANDARAMA K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT KANDHAYA BHAVAN K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45524 WP No. 49699 of 2019 3. THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK KANDHAYA BHAVAN K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. 4. THE VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT MALLASANDRA VILLAGE UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU- 560001. 5. BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TASK FORCE B.B.M.P. OFFICE BUILDING N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002. REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE 6. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. K.KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R6; R5 SERVED, UNREPRESENTED ) ------- THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT R-1 TO 5 NOT TO DEMOLISH THE RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT COMPLEX BY NAME PROVIDENT PARK SQUARE OR ANY PORTION OF IT INCLUDING THE PRECINCTS THEREOF BEING CONSTRUCTED ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SITUATED IN SY.NO.9/2A AND SY.NO.9/2B, MALLASANDRA VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK OR TAKE ANY OTHER PRECIPITATIVE OR COERCIVE ACTION OF WHATSOEVER NATURE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45524 WP No. 49699 of 2019 ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus against respondents No.1 to 5 directing not to demolish the Residential Apartment Complex by name "Provident Park Square" and further not to interfere with the subject land. 2. Heard Sri.Anandarama.K, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.K.Krishna, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6-BDA and the learned AGA for respondents No.1 to 4. 3. Sri.Anandarama.K, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, reiterating the averments made in the petition, has filed a memo dated 10.11.2025 along with the copy of the Occupancy Certificates dated 06.08.2022 and 07.07.2023 issued by the respondent-BDA and submitted that, the Project of the petitioner-Developer is completed and Occupancy Certificates have been issued by the respondent-BDA and therefore, there shall be no interference from respondents No.1 to 5. Accordingly sought for interference by this Court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45524 WP No. 49699 of 2019 4. Per contra, Sri Mahantesh Shettar, learned AGA for respondents No.1 to 4 sought to justify the action of the respondent-Authorities and submitted that, it is open for the petitioner to approach the Competent Authority i.e. respondents No.1 to 4 for redressal of the grievance. 5. Sri K.Krishna, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6- BDA, did not dispute with regard to the issuance of the Occupancy Certificates dated 06.08.2022 and 07.07.2023. 6. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the apprehension of the petitioner in the writ petition is with regard to the fact that, the respondents No.1 to 5 are resorting to demolish the building belonging to the petitioner is concerned. In this regard, following the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh And Others reported in (2020) 2 SCC 569, I am of the view that, right to property guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India has been considered as a human right. Hence, I am of the view that, as the respondent No.6- - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45524 WP No. 49699 of 2019 BDA has already issued Occupancy Right in respect of the subject land, respondents No.1 to 5 are restrained from interfering with the scheduled property. However, in the event if there is violation thereof committed by the petitioner, it is open for the respondents to follow due process of law and take action against the petitioner, in accordance with law. With this observation, the writ petition is disposed. All contentions of the parties are kept open. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE rs List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29