- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49033 WP No. 11901 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 11901 OF 2020 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: CENTURY GALAXY DEVELOPERS LTD A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956, WITH ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT TOWER B, 9TH FLOOR, CORPORATE BLOCK, DIAMOND DISTRICT, OLD AIRPORT ROAD, KODIHALLI, BENGALURU 560008. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ARJUN RAO., ADVOCATE FOR SMT. BHARATHI PATIL., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MS BUILDING, BENGALURU -560001. REP BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU 560001. 3. THE TAHSILDAR KR PURAM, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU 560036. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.MAHANTESH SHETTAR., AGA FOR R1 TO R3) Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49033 WP No. 11901 of 2020 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS WITH REGARD TO THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND THEIR ACTION IN EARMARKING AND DEMOLITION THE SOUTH EASTERN POTION OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY AFTER EXAMINING THE PROPRIETY OR OTHERWISE OF THE SAME DECLARE THAT THE ACTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS TO BE ILLEGAL IN AS MUCH AS THE SAME HAVE NOT BEEN PROCEEDED WITH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ETC. 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 ORAL ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for declaration that the action of the respondents is illegal in interfering with the portion of the land belonging to the petitioner is concerned. 2. Heard Sri Arjun Rao, learned Counsel for Smt.Bharathi Patil, for the petitioner and Sri Mahantesh - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49033 WP No. 11901 of 2020 Shettar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. 3. Having taken note of the submissions made by the counsels appearing for the parties, the petitioner claims to be the owner of multistoried residential commercial complex consisting of 17 residential blocks and 4 commercial towers called as 'Diamond District'. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents without issuing notice, have illegally marked and demolished the portion of the property as stated in paragraph-1 of the writ petition and therefore, sought for direction for illegal interference made by the respondents are concerned. 5. In this regard, learned Additional Government Advocate Sri Mahantesh Shettar, invited the attention of the court to the notice dated 29.10.2020 issued by the respondent No.3, wherein the petitioner has been called upon to produce the relevant documents alleging - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49033 WP No. 11901 of 2020 encroachment of the Rajakaluve as per the report of the Revenue Inspector. 6. In the backdrop of these aspects, it is well settled principle in law that, the respondents are restrained from interfering with the property belonging to the petitioner without the procedure established by law. In the event if the respondents interfere with the schedule property belonging to the petitioner alleging about the encroachment made therein, the same has to be done only after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, since the compliance of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India has to be made in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh And Others reported in (2020) 2 SCC 569. It is also forthcoming from the petition papers that respondent No.3 has issued notice dated 29.10.2020 and called upon the petitioner to produce certain documents alleging encroachment of Rajakaluve on 06.11.2020. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49033 WP No. 11901 of 2020 7. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that, it is open for the petitioner to approach respondent No.3 with relevant documents to answer the notice dated 29.10.2020 in a manner known to law within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On submission of the reply that may be made by the petitioner herein, respondent No.3 shall take a decision in the matter in accordance with law within three months thereafter. Till the consideration of the reply that may be made by the petitioner herein, no precipitative action shall be taken against the petitioner by the respondent-authorities. 8. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the portion of the building belonging to the petitioner has been demolished by the respondent-authorities. In this regard, since disputed question of facts are involved with regard to the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49033 WP No. 11901 of 2020 petitioner, it is open for the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court for redressal of their grievance. 9. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE JT/- CT: JL