- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24888 WP No. 7757 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16669 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 7757 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 16669 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) IN WP No. 7757/2025 BETWEEN: SHRI SHANIDEVARA DEVALAYA ABHIRUDDI TRUST R/AT NO.148A (OLD NO.591/A), 5TH MAIN ROAD, 4TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 010. REPTD BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT SRI. K. CHITRAM BALAM, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JAGADEESH D.C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BBMP HEAD OFFICE, N R SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002. 2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (WEST) BBMP, HEAD OFFICE, N R SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002. 3. THE REVENUE OFFICER (SHRI RAMA MANDIRA) BBMP, Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24888 WP No. 7757 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16669 of 2025 COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, 2ND BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 010. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MONESH KUMAR K.B., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. B.S. JAYANTH KRISHNA FOR PROPOSED RESPONDENT ON IA 1/2025) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO RENEW THE LEASE OF PLACE SITUATED AT NO.148/A (OLD NO.591/A), 5TH MAIN ROAD, 4TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560010 GRANTED AS PER REGISTERED LEASE AGREEMENT DATED 18-11-2011 VIDE ANNEXURE-D WHERE SHRI SHANIDEVARA TEMPLE IS IN EXISTENCE SINCE 1965 TILL DATE BY CONSIDERING APPLICATION IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER TRUST DATED 02-12-2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND ALSO AS PER ENDORSEMENT 08-03-2021 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-F FORTHWITH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IN WP NO. 16669/2025 BETWEEN: D. BHAKTHAVATHSALA AGED 62 YEARS, S/O LATE R. DHARMANAIDU, RESIDING AT HOUSE # 146/A, 5TH MAIN ROAD, 4TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA STATE-560 010. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. P. VYASATHIRTHA, ADVOCATE) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24888 WP No. 7757 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16669 of 2025 AND: 1. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002. 2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (WEST) ENGINEERING DIVISION, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, HEAD OFFICE, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002. 3. THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, SREE RAMA MANDIRA WARD NO.108, 2ND BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, RTO(W) COMPLEX, BENGALURU-560 010. 4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, SREE RAMA MANDIRA WARD NO.108, 2ND BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, RTO(W) COMPLEX, BENGALURU-560 010. 5. SHRI SHANIDEVARA DEVALAYA ABHIVRUDHI TRUST (R), SITUATED AT NO.148A (OLD NO.591/A), 5TH MAIN ROAD, 4TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 010. REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT, SRI. K. CHITRAM BALAM, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/A # 559, 6TH MAIN, 4TH BLOCK, NEAR SPANDANA HOSPITAL, RAJAJINAGAR, B'LURU-560 010. 6. SMT. B.K. SAVITHRI, W/O LATE MAHADEVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24888 WP No. 7757 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16669 of 2025 PRESENTLY RESIDING AT #144/B, 6TH MAIN ROAD, 4TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 010. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KARTHIKEYAN B.S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. MONESH KUMAR K.B., ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI. JAGADEESH D.C., ADVOCATE FOR R5 & R6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECTING RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 TO TAKE NECESSARY IMMEDIATE ACTION AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS 5 AND 6 AND/OR ANY OTHER PERSONS CREATING PUBLIC NUISANCE AND WASTE, FOR THEIR ILLEGAL ENCROACHMENT AND UNAUTHORISED CONSTRUCTION OVER THE BBMP’S CIVIC AMENITY SITE NO.148A(OLD 591/A) TO PREVENT RESPONDENT NOS.5 AND 6 OR ANY OTHER PERSON/S ACTING ON THEIR BEHALF IN THIS REGARD TO PROTECT THE C.A.SITE NO.148A(OLD 591/A) BY TAKING NECESSARY PREVENTIVE ACTION SUCH AS- FENCING, DISPLAY OF PROHIBITORY BOARDS, ETC., AND ALSO TO MAINTAIN THE SETBACK AS PER LAW AS ALREADY ORDERED AND DIRECTED IN RFA NO.593/2015 DTD.18.05.2023 BY THIS HONBLE COURT (MARKED AS ANNEXURE-N IN THE WRIT PETITION) AS THE SAME IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY AND EXPEDIENT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24888 WP No. 7757 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16669 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Mr.Jagadeesh is directed to take notice to respondents-5 and 6 in WP No.16669/2025. 2. Since the issue is common in both the writ petitions, both are clubbed and taken together for disposal. 3. Facts leading to this case are as under: Petitioner-Trust in WP No.7757/2025 is seeking mandamus against the respondents to renew the lease of the open space comprising a temple in property No.148/A (old No.591/A), 5th Main Road, 4th Block, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru- 560 010, in terms of registered lease agreement dated 18.11.2011, which is evidenced at Annexure-D. 4. According to the petitioner, in the above said petition Shri Shanidevara Temple is in existence from 1965 and therefore the petitioner-Trust is seeking renewal of the lease. 5. The counter petition is filed seeking mandamus against the respondents to take action against the petitioners in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24888 WP No. 7757 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16669 of 2025 WP No.7757/2025 who are respondents-5 and 6 in WP No.16669/2025. 6. The petitioner-Trust is seeking renewal of the lease deed in its favour in respect of the premises housing Shri Shanidevara Temple, along with Anjaneyaswamy, Ganesha, and Navagraha Temples. According to the petitioner-Trust, it has been managing and maintaining the aforesaid Temple, which currently has an AC sheet roof. The Trust states that it was earlier granted lease rights over the Temple premises for a period of five years, on a monthly rental of ₹1,000/-. Although the petitioner-Trust submitted an application for renewal of the lease on 18.11.2011, it is aggrieved by the endorsement issued by the Revenue Officer stating that the renewal would be considered based on feasibility, among other factors. This prompted the petitioner-Trust to file another application on 02.12.2024, seeking renewal of the lease for an extended period of 25 years. 7. In the connected writ petition, W.P. No. 16669/2025, the petitioner, who claims to be the adjoining landowner abutting the disputed property, has placed on record - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24888 WP No. 7757 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16669 of 2025 the orders passed in contempt proceedings arising out of W.P. No. 12499/2008, as well as the judgments of this Court in R.S.A. No. 594/2015 and R.S.A. No. 103/2015. 8. Upon closer scrutiny of the documents filed in the connected writ petition, this Court finds that the petitioner- Trust has suppressed material facts most notably, the pendency of contempt proceedings which bear directly on the Trust’s claimed right to seek renewal of the lease for the Shri Shanidevara Temple premises. The observations made by this Court in those proceedings cast doubt on the Trust’s entitlement to manage or claim rights over the said Temple, which remains a disputed property. In this background, the Court finds it appropriate to extract paragraphs 7 to 13 of the relevant judgment, which read as follows: “7. The Commissioner of BBMP has filed one more additional affidavit on 4.2.2010. He states that the Corporation has removed the encroachment and taken possession of 1771 sq. ft. of land on 24.11.2009. The Chief Engineer (West) and other officials of BBMP alongwith police force have tried to demolish the temple and due to heavy protest and interference by the local public, the temple could not be demolished. Hence, a local Committee was constituted by the public to - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24888 WP No. 7757 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16669 of 2025 maintain the temple and a new Archaka was appointed by the new Committee to perform the pooja. A copy of the undertaking given by the local public, the proceedings of the meeting of local Committee, photographs produced by the local public for previous years functions and photographs taken on 29.1.2010 showing heavy protest by public are produced as Annexures-R4 to R7. From 1.2.2010 the entire civic amenity is in possession of BBMP and the local residents have no right over the civic amenity site except performing pooja in the temple. A copy of the report prepared by the Engineering department is also produced as Annexure-R8. 8. One more additional affidavit filed Dr. K.H. Govindaraj, Special Commissioner and Commissioner of BBMP to the effect that a new archaka by name Sri G Chandrashekhar @ Chandrashekhara Shastri, S/o G H Shivanna who is residing at No.11, Kattegollahalli, Biderkatte Post, Tumkur-572 145, is not related to respondents 3 to 5. 9. Sri A V Gangadharappa, learned counsel appearing for the complainants submits that the material on record discloses that the property in question is a civil amenity site and meant for park and playground. There are several litigations between the complainants and respondents No.3 to 5. It is has been categorically held that the respondents No.3 to 5 are unauthorised occupants. In terms of the order passed by this Court, - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24888 WP No. 7757 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16669 of 2025 even though some small structures are demolished by the Corporation, they have not demolished the constructions where these idols are kept. The entire area encroached is kept under lock and key and there is no access. The respondents have not demolished the compound wall and put up fence. Therefore, he contends that there is no compliance with the order passed by this Court. 10. Per contra, Sri K N Puttegowda, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation submits that the Corporation has taken possession of 1771 sq. ft. of land on 24.11.2009. They have kept under lock and key. When an attempt was made to remove the idols and demolish the temples, public opposed it. Therefore, the local Committee has appointed a new archak. Therefore, he submits that the Corporation has removed the encroachment by respondents No.3 to 5 and they are not in possession of any portion of the property. The order passed by this Court has been duly complied with and there is no contempt. 11. The Advocate appearing for respondents No.3 to 5 submits that so far as the property under dispute is concerned, they have no proprietary right over the property and the 4th respondent has been appointed as Archak. 12. From the above material on record, it is clear that the matter was agitated before this Court. A perusal of the order passed by this Court that the Court was not - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24888 WP No. 7757 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16669 of 2025 aware of the existence of the temples in the land in question. A further perusal of the order shows that respondents No. 3to 5 were attempted to encroach upon the property and the Corporation was not taken any action. In fact, the Corporation has filed an affidavit before the Apex Court stating that one Seshadri encroached the property in the year 1965 and put up construction. It is clear from the order that respondents No.3 to 5 are encroaching the property and putting up construction. From the Commissioner's report and photographs produced before Court and admissions of the complainants themselves, we are satisfied that except the temples, the remaining extent of encroachment is removed and the Corporation has taken possession. The local Committee has appointed an Archak. The photographs produced alongwith the affidavit by the Commissioner show the large extent of public participation in the religious function in the temple and there is huge gathering on those occasions and in otherwords, the temple is being used by the general public from quite some time. Merely because the Corporation has not demolished the compound wall surrounding the property, it cannot be said that the possession is not taken. The Corporation is not expected to put up the barbed wire. It has retained the compound wall and has provided access to the temple for public. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Corporation has kept it under lock and key and make available to the temples for public. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24888 WP No. 7757 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16669 of 2025 13. The material on record discloses that the 1st complainant is only an adjoining owner of the property and it is he who is prosecuting the matter and he is not completely satisfied with the action of the Corporation.” 9. This Court also deems fit to extract the operative portion of the judgment rendered by this Court in RFA No.593/2015 C/w RFA No.1034/2015. “1) The appeal RFA No.593/2015 is allowed with costs. The impugned judgment and decree dated 13.02.2015 passed in O.S.No.8288/2003 by the learned IX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of Schedule 'B', is confirmed. 2) The suit of the plaintiff for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing repairs of the building and construction of first floor as per the approved plan and licence by putting scaffold on the north of his property is also decreed. 3) The defendants are directed to remove the lean to the roof and the shed touching the northern wall of plaintiff's house by keeping open the land to an extent of 3 feet from the northern wall of his house by way of mandatory injunction. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24888 WP No. 7757 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16669 of 2025 4) If the defendants fail to remove the same within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment, the plaintiff is at liberty to get it removed through the process of Court. 5) RFA No.1034/2015 is dismissed with costs. Office is directed to draw decree accordingly and send back the trial Court records along with copy of the judgment and decree.” 10. On a careful examination of the observations recorded by the Contempt Court extracted hereinabove and upon considering the operative portion of the judgment rendered by this Court in RFA No. 593/2015 c/w RFA No. 1034/2015, it becomes evident that any consideration of the petitioner-Trust’s application for renewal of lease must be made strictly in accordance with the directions and findings laid down in those proceedings. The documents and findings therein conclusively reflect that the status of the property is contested and that the respondents, including the petitioner-Trust, have previously been found to have encroached upon portions of the civic amenity site. The observations of the Contempt Court specifically emphasis the unauthorized nature of the occupation and the actions taken by the BBMP in response, - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24888 WP No. 7757 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16669 of 2025 including demolition measures and the eventual formation of a local committee to oversee religious functions. 11. Though the petitioner-Trust in the present writ petition may, in principle, have the right to seek consideration of its application for lease renewal, this Court is compelled to take serious note of the petitioner’s conduct in failing to disclose these critical and adverse findings. The suppression of material facts particularly the non-disclosure of the contempt proceedings, the findings therein, and the existence of a parallel adjudication on similar issues strikes at the root of the petitioner's bona fides. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus while omitting key facts that go to the heart of its entitlement. Such conduct amounts to a calculated attempt to mislead this Court and cannot be condoned. 12. The petitioner in the connected writ petition has placed on record the orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench, the Contempt Court, and also various civil court proceedings, all of which have a direct and material bearing on the petitioner-Trust’s alleged right to seek renewal of the lease - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24888 WP No. 7757 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16669 of 2025 concerning the Shri Shanidevara Temple premises. These orders and judgments unequivocally demonstrate that the petitioner-Trust's occupation and administration of the Temple premises are not beyond dispute, and the question of entitlement is inextricably linked to findings already rendered by competent Courts. 13. While this Court is, in principle, inclined to direct the respondent authorities to consider the representation filed by the petitioner-Trust seeking lease renewal, the manner in which the petitioner has approached this Court with clear suppression of vital facts warrants imposition of costs. It is well settled that litigants who withhold crucial material from Constitutional Courts do so at their peril. Courts must remain vigilant to prevent abuse of process and must deal with such conduct with the seriousness it deserves. This Court is more than satisfied that the petitioner-Trust, by suppressing the existence and contents of the contempt proceedings and related judgments, has acted with gross impropriety. Although partial relief may still be granted to the petitioner-Trust in directing consideration of its representation, this relief must be - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24888 WP No. 7757 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16669 of 2025 accompanied by costs to reflect the Court’s disapproval of such conduct. Litigants who seek equitable relief must come with clean hands, and suppression of material facts will invariably attract consequences. 14. For the forgoing reasons, this Court pass the following: ORDER i. Writ Petition No. 7757/2025 is partly allowed. ii. Respondents No.1 to 3 are directed to consider the representation dated 02.12.2024 submitted by the petitioner- Trust, strictly in accordance with the observations recorded by this Court in CCC No.778/2009, and the findings and directions issued by the Co-ordinate Bench in RFA No.593/2015 and RFA No.1034/2015. iii. The petitioner-Trust in W.P. No. 7757/2025 is directed to pay costs of ₹10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the Karnataka High Court Advocate Clerks Benevolent Fund within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and to report compliance. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24888 WP No. 7757 of 2025 C/W WP No. 16669 of 2025 iv. Consequently, Writ Petition No. 16669/2025 stands allowed. v. The respondents—BBMP authorities are directed to club and consider both applications submitted by the petitioner- Trust and the adjoining property owner, afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to both parties, and thereafter take a reasoned decision strictly in line with the directions and findings of the Contempt Court. vi. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. vii. In view of the disposal of W.P. No. 7757/2025, I.A. No.1/2025 does not survive for consideration and stands disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE TL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10