- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28652 WP No. 24309 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.24309 OF 2024 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: SRI.SHANKAR. H. S. S/O LATE SRI.SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT NO D-386 EAST, 5TH LANE I.T.I COLONY DOORAVANINAGAR BEGNALURU - 560 016 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R B SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N R SQURE HUDSON CIRCLE BENGALURU - 560002 2. THE JOINT ZONAL COMMISSIONER MAHADEVAPURA ZONE DIVISION BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANGARA PALIKE MAHADEVAPURA BENGALURU - 560036 3. M/S.MANJUSHREE LAND DEVELOPERS AND CONSTRUCTIONS Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28652 WP No. 24309 of 2024 PARTNERSHIP FIRM REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI.R.RAMAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 56 YERS NO.65, PRIYANKA APARTMENTS DEVAKI APPARAO LAYOUT YERAPPANAPALAY MAIN ROAD RAMAMURTHY NAGAR DOORAVANINAGAR BENGALURU - 560016 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R.1 AND R.2; V/O DATED 11.11.2024 NOTICE TO R.3 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE R1 AND R2 HEREIN TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER DTD 22.01.24 VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 TO REMOVE THE OBSTRUCTION CAUSED BY THE R3 FOR THE USE OF THE ROAD LEADING TO THE LAND OF THE PETITIONER AND ONE SRI.TUMKUR NAGARAJ RAGHAVENDRA 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 In the captioned writ petition, the petitioner is seeking writ in the nature of mandamus against - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28652 WP No. 24309 of 2024 respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 22.01.2024 vide Annexure-J and consequently direct respondent Nos.1 and 2 to remove obstruction caused by respondent No.3 in enabling the petitioner to have access through the existing road formed by the private respondents. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. There is no contest by respondent No.3, who is served and unrepresented. 3. The petitioner traces his title through the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 8378/2011. It is the specific assertion of the petitioner that his vendor was one of the plaintiffs in the said suit, which was a suit for partition and separate possession. The said suit culminated in a judgment and decree dated 01.12.2015, whereby the plaintiffs were declared entitled to 1/8th share in the suit schedule property. Significantly, the sale deed dated 20.03.2006 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28652 WP No. 24309 of 2024 executed by the defendants therein was held not binding on the plaintiffs' 1/8th undivided share. In order to appreciate the foundation of the petitioner’s title, this Court deems it appropriate to extract the relevant operative portion of the judgment rendered in O.S.No. 8378/2011. "Suit filed by the plaintiffs against defendants 1 to 8 is hereby decreed with cost. Plaintiffs are entitled to one-eight share each in the suit schedule property. It is declared the sale deed dated 13.08.2003 executed by the General Power of Attorney Holder of plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 6 by name Chinnappa in favour of defendant No.7 in respect of the suit schedule property, is not binding on the plaintiffs. It is declared the sale deed dated 20.03.2006 executed by defendant No.7 in favour of defendant No.8 in respect of the suit schedule property, is not binding on the plaintiffs. Draw preliminary decree accordingly.". - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28652 WP No. 24309 of 2024 4. Based on the preliminary decree passed in O.S. No. 8378/2011, the petitioner's vendors initiated final decree proceedings in FDP No. 136/2017. In the said final decree proceedings, the portion of land corresponding to their share was specifically allotted to the petitioner's vendors, who thereafter executed a registered sale deed dated 26.09.2023 in favour of the petitioner. A copy of the said sale deed is produced at Annexure-A. The petitioner has now approached this Court alleging inaction on the part of respondent Nos.1 and 2, who have failed to consider and act upon the representation submitted by the petitioner. 5. On perusal of the photographs produced at Annexure-H1, it is evident that the petitioner's vendors, being daughters, had instituted a suit for partition, which culminated in a decree allotting their rightful share. Pursuant to the final decree proceedings in FDP No.136/2017, the allotted portion was carved out and subsequently conveyed to the petitioner. The photographs - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28652 WP No. 24309 of 2024 at Annexure-H1 further reveal that the portion allotted to the petitioner is now surrounded by the layout formed by private respondent No.3. It is particularly noteworthy that the road laid by respondent No.3 on either side terminates at the petitioner’s property. Shockingly, respondent No.3 has obstructed the road abutting the petitioner’s property, thereby denying continuity of access. While the petitioner must also ensure that a proper road alignment is maintained through his land, given the continuity and width of the road on either side, respondent No.3 cannot unilaterally block or obstruct the access road. 6. It is also observed that the surrounding land has been developed after obtaining conversion orders. However, the layout does not appear to have received requisite statutory approval. In such circumstances, it is incumbent upon the BBMP officials to examine the grievance set out in the petitioner’s representation dated 22.01.2024. In light of the inaction by respondent Nos.1 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28652 WP No. 24309 of 2024 and 2, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case for issuance of a writ of mandamus. 7. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to notify respondent No.3 and conduct a fresh spot inspection. In the event it is found that a road has already been formed abutting to petitioner's land, as depicted in the photographs at Annexure-H1, respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall ensure that the said road is not obstructed and that the petitioner is granted access to the roads formed by respondent No.3 on either side of his property. (iii) The above exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28652 WP No. 24309 of 2024 (iv) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall also conduct an enquiry after issuing due notice to the petitioner. The concerned officials shall be at liberty to call for relevant title documents and the judgments in O.S. No.8378/2011 and FDP No.136/2017, and thereafter take an appropriate decision on the petitioner’s representation in accordance with law. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4