- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42165 WP No. 35495 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 35495 OF 2024 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. SRI.MANOJ.H S/O T HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.9/2, 2ND MAIN ROAD, SRI SALLAPURADAMMA LAYOUT, VISHVANIDAM POST, SUNKADAKATTE, BENGALURU-560091 2. SRI.HANUMANTHARAYAPPA S/O LATE THIMMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.85/6, 2ND CROSS, SRI SALLAPURADAMMA LAYOUT, VISHVANIDAM POST, SUNKADAKATTE, BENGALURU-560091 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAVINDRA M V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER HEGGANAHALLI SUB-DIVISION, BBMP, DASARAHALLI ZONE, HEGGANAHALLI, NO.470D, 12TH CROSS, 4TH CROSS, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42165 WP No. 35495 of 2024 BENGALURU-562110. 2. SRI.KANEKENAHALLI KRISHANAPPA KARNATAKA STATE BAHUJANA CHALUVALI (R), RESIDING AT NO.577/1, 7TH CROSS ROAD, ANDRAHALLI MAIN ROAD, MARUTHI NAGAR, HEGGANAHALLI, BENGALURU-560091. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BATHE GOWDA K.V., ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 22.10.2024 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS VIDE SA.KAM.AA/HE/HUVI/PR/3596/2024-25 IS CONCERNED AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioners have challenged a notice issued by the respondent No.1 bearing No.Sa.Kam.aa./he/huvi/pr/3596/ 2024-25 dated 22.10.2024 and 30.11.2024. 2. (i) The petitioners claim that they are the owners of properties bearing site No.3, Assessment Nos.4/1, 4/2 and 4/3, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (henceforth referred to as 'BBMP' for short) Hegganahalli ward No.71 and site No.4, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42165 WP No. 35495 of 2024 Assessment Nos.4/1 and 4/4, situated at BBMP Hegganahalli ward No.71. (ii) They claim that the aforesaid properties were formed in survey No.4, which was later bifurcated as survey No.4/1, 4/2 and 4/3 and 4/4 and belonged to Late.Revanna and his children. The said persons had appointed one Sri.H.Narayan Shetty as a power of attorney in terms of a document dated 03.10.1985. The said Sri.H.Narayan Shetty executed a sale deed dated 05.01.2013 conveying the aforesaid properties to the petitioners. (iii) The respondent No.2 entered the name of the petitioner No.1 in the records of the Municipal Corporation. Likewise, the property bearing site No.2 belonged to one Smt.Narasamma and she had appointed one Sri.Manu as her power of attorney on 05.08.1996 and he executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner No.2 in respect of site No.2 and the name of the petitioner No.2 was entered in the records of the Municipal Corporation. (iv) The petitioners claimed that they constructed a building on the aforesaid properties and are in possession. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42165 WP No. 35495 of 2024 Thereafter, an activist had filed an application before respondent No.1 contending that the property claimed by the petitioners belonged to the State Government and had vested in the BBMP. In order to enquire into the said allegation, the respondent No.1 issued a notice bearing No No.Sa.Kam.aa./he/huvi/pr/3596/ 2024-25 dated 22.10.2024, which is challenged in this petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have valid title to the properties. Therefore, he contended that, the respondent No.1 could not have entertained the complaint of the respondent No.2. 4. The respondent No.1 has acted on a complaint lodged by the respondent No.2 wherein it is alleged that the property claimed by the petitioners was earlier a part of a government tank. Once the respondent No.2 had lodged a complaint, it was incumbent upon the respondent No.1 to enquire the allegation and return a finding as to whether the property of the petitioners lay within or was part of a government tank. Therefore, the issuance of a notice by the respondent No.1 cannot be assailed by the petitioners. The - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42165 WP No. 35495 of 2024 petitioners who were notified about the claim made by the respondent No.2 were bound to produce documents to justify their claim that they are the lawful owners of the property. They however cannot question the notice issued by the respondent No.1. 5. In that view of the matter, the petition lacks merit and is dismissed. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39