- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43252 WP No. 518 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 518 OF 2018 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: HABITAT SPLENDOUR OWNERS ASSOCIATION REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA APARTMENT OWNERSHIP ACT, 1972 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT ITPL MAIN ROAD, KUNDALAHALLI, BROOKEFIELD, NEAR CMR INSTITUTE, BANGALORE-560037 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT MR. AJIT KARNAD …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DHANANJAY V. JOSHI, SENIOR COUNSEL ALONG WITH SRI. H.U. VACHAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE MAHADEVAPURA DIVISION BENGALURU-560048 2. THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER BBMP, MAHADEVAPURA DIVISION, HOODI SUB DIVISION, BENGALURU-560048 3. PARVATHI REDDY WIFE OF NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER MAJOR KARNATAKA PRADESH MAHILA CONGRESS, AROHALLI VILLAGE, MUSANDRA (POST) VIA WHITE FIELD BENGALURU-560087 Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43252 WP No. 518 of 2018 4. GOPALAN ENTERPRISES NO.05, RICHMOND ROAD BENGALURU-560025 REPRESENTED BY PROPRIETOR 5. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN, BANGALORE-560009. 6. SUB-REGISTRAR MAHADEVAPURA, BANGALORE-560016. AS DIRECTED VIDE ORDER DATED 09.10.2023 CAUSE TITLE AMENDED. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.S.KANNUR, SENIOR COUNSEL ALONG WITH SMT. SUMANGALA GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2; SRI. B.V.RAMAN, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3; SRI. K.N.PHANINDRA, SENIOR COUNSEL ALONG WITH SMT.KRUTHIKA RAGHAVAN, SMT.SAMEEKSHA PATIL, ADVOCATES FOR RESPONDENT NO.4; SRI. B. BOPANNA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.5 AND 6; SRI.RAJESH MAHALE, SENIOR COUNSEL ALONG WITH SMT. SUKANYA H.D., ADVOCATE FOR PROPOSED RESPONDENT NO.7) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.12.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-A HEREIN, PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 IN APPEAL NO.6/2017-18 FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 UNDER SECTION 114-A OF THE KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1976 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL DISPOSAL, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43252 WP No. 518 of 2018 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged an order dated 15.12.2017 passed by the respondent No.1 in Appeal No. ¸ÀA:dA.C/ªÀÄ.ªÀ/C-06/2017-18 filed by the respondent No.3 under Section 114A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (for short, 'the Act, 1976'). It has also sought for a direction to the respondent No.1 to hear and adjudicate upon the maintainability of the Appeal No.6/2017-18 filed by the respondent No.3 and in the event respondent No.1 were to hold that appeal is maintainable, to direct the respondent No.1 to stay all further proceedings therein for a period of four weeks to enable the petitioner to approach this Court. 2. The petitioner claims that it is an Association registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972 of members, who own flats in a residential complex known as "Habitat Splendour" developed on the converted land bearing Mahadevapura City Municipal khata No.108 measuring 3,53,925 Sq. ft. i.e. total 08 Acres 05 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43252 WP No. 518 of 2018 Guntas formed in 05 Acres 06 guntas of land in Sy. No.16 and 02 Acres 39 Guntas of land in Sy. No.45 situate at Chinnapanahalli village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk (henceforth referred to as 'the petition schedule property' / 'subject property'). The apartments were purportedly constructed in the petition schedule property in accordance with a modified sanctioned plan bearing L.P No.419/2003-04. The construction of the apartments was completed during 2004-05 and the property was assessed to tax and individual khatas were issued to each of the flats constructed in the apartment complex. The petitioner contends that when things stood thus, the respondent No.3 submitted a representation to the respondent No.1 which was treated as information for the purposes of initiating proceedings under Section 114-A of the Act, 1976 for cancellation of the khata issued to the flats constructed on the petition schedule property. The petitioner claims that the objections were filed to the representation filed by the respondent No.3 and a preliminary objection was raised regarding the power of the respondent No.1 to entertain the representation of the respondent No.3 beyond three years from the date the khatas were issued. The Developer / Builder of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43252 WP No. 518 of 2018 apartments also submitted its objections questioning the representation on various grounds including the restriction against entertaining such review petitions beyond three years. 3. One Mr. Senthil and one Mr. Shareef Ussenni filed two applications to implead themselves in the proceedings before the respondent No.1. 4. The petitioner opposed those applications contending inter alia that the proceedings under Section 114-A of the Act, 1976 were not akin to the proceedings under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the CPC') and the respondent No.1 was not a Civil Court and therefore, the respondent No.1 without adjudicating upon the maintainability of the proceedings, cannot consider the applications filed for impleadment. 5. The respondent No.1, passed the impugned order dated 15.12.2017 issuing notices to the former land owners of the petition schedule property and instructed the concerned officers to conduct a spot inspection on 20.01.2017. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43252 WP No. 518 of 2018 6. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent No.1 was bound to consider the threshold objection raised by the petitioner that the respondent No.3 was not a person interested in the development of flats on the subject property. Therefore, he contended that a complaint at the instance of the respondent No.3 was not maintainable. He also contends that even if the information furnished by the respondent No.3 was treated as information for the purpose of initiating suo motu action, then the same had to be done within three years from the date of such recording of transfer of title as provided under Section 114-A of the Act, 1976. He, therefore, contends that the respondent No.1 without considering this threshold contention, could not have proceeded further by enlarging the scope of the proceedings i.e. by issuing notices to the former land owners and by instructing the concerned officers to conduct the spot inspection. He contends that if the land owners or any other person has any grievance over the construction put up in the petition schedule property, they have to work out their remedy before the appropriate - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43252 WP No. 518 of 2018 Authority and not in the proceedings under Section 114-A of the Act, 1976. Besides this, he contends that the erstwhile land owners have already initiated a civil suit in respect of the development undertaken in the petition schedule property and they have also taken steps before the appropriate Authority alleging that the construction put up by the Developer is not in accordance with the plan and the plan relied upon by the petitioner is not sanctioned by the respondent Nos.1 and 2. He, therefore, contends that the respondent No.1 cannot resort to witch hunting in a proceeding under Section 114-A of the Act, 1976. 8. The petition is opposed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 contending inter alia that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 102 of the Act, 1976 and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. It is also contended that the respondent No.3 has filed a representation with the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (for short, 'BBMP') inter alia stating that: (a) the respondent No.4 had constructed additional apartments without adhering to the sanctioned plan and that the construction was illegal; (b) there was illegal issuance of khata in respect of the apartments so - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43252 WP No. 518 of 2018 constructed and as against 396 apartments which were permitted, 614 flats were illegally constructed; (c) that there was a huge revenue loss to the in view of the illegal flats constructed; (d) there was an encroachment of the lake area; and (e) that there was an encroachment of the road area to an extent of 25 feet. 9. It is contended that after receipt of the representation, a note was put up on 22.05.2017 by the concerned case worker setting out the statements made in the representation. Based on the same note, the file was put up before the Deputy Commissioner, Mahadevapura Zone, BBMP Zonal Office, who fixed a date of hearing and placed the file before the Joint Commissioner, Mahadevapura Zone. Thereafter, the proceedings were initiated and notices were issued. It is contended that there was a representation submitted to the Chairman of the Administrative Section of BBMP stating that there were illegalities in sanction of plan and also there was encroachment of the lake by Habitat Splendour. The Standing Committee for the Staff and Administration had issued directions to the Joint Commissioner (Revenue), BBMP to furnish a detailed report. Based on the directions issued by - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43252 WP No. 518 of 2018 the Standing Committee, the Joint Commissioner (Revenue) BBMP, had issued directions to the Joint Commissioner, Mahadevapura, and to the Joint Director (Town Planning - North) to act upon it. It is claimed that on 11.05.2017, there was a direction from the office of the Mayor, BBMP to the Joint Commissioner, Mahadevapura and the Additional Director (Town Planning) to take necessary action in the matter and submit a report. Later, proceedings were conducted from 09.06.2017 to 15.12.2017 by the Joint Commissioner, Mahadevapura. During the proceedings, the petitioner claims that the plan that was sanctioned earlier was modified and therefore, the Town Planning Department was requested to furnish the modified plan. The office of the Additional Director of Town Planning issued a letter dated 04.12.2017 to the Joint Commissioner, Mahadevapura Zone stating that there was no modified sanctioned plan and that there was only one plan and that was not modified. Based on these contentions, it was decided to conduct a spot inspection in the presence of all the officials and the interested parties. It is contended that the petitioner had earlier filed W.P. No.4294/2013 and during the pendency of the writ petition, this Court had appointed the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43252 WP No. 518 of 2018 Deputy Director of Land Records as Court Commissioner to inspect the spot and furnish a report. The Court Commissioner conducted a spot inspection and found that the petitioner had encroached upon the lake, road area and that the existing 40 feet road on the southern side was reduced to 15 feet as a result of the encroachment. The petitioner thereafter withdrew the aforementioned writ petition with liberty to approach the Civil Court and thereafter, it filed O.S. No.495/2017 before the Civil Court for perpetual injunction, where an order of status quo was passed. 10. It is contended that there is no order of injunction in so far as the construction put up by the Developer on the petition schedule property. It is claimed that the present enquiry is in respect of the illegal khatas made in respect of the flats and therefore, there are no mala fides in conducting the proceedings against the petitioner. It is claimed that Section 114-A of the Act, 1976 empowers the Commissioner to suo motu or otherwise conduct the proceedings if there is any illegality, fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of material facts. It is claimed that the proceedings were initiated because of fraud alleged against the Builder / respondent No.4 in the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43252 WP No. 518 of 2018 aforementioned representations and also as per the orders of the superiors of the Joint Commissioner, BBMP, Mahadevapura. It is claimed that if the petitioner's contention that the construction is in accordance with the sanctioned plan is right, then they cannot have any grievance over the respondent Nos.1 and 2 conducting a spot inspection. 11. It is claimed that the State Government in order to prevent encroachments of lakes in the City of Bengaluru had constituted a Committee headed by the Hon'ble Speaker as its Chairman and that a report was submitted to the Committee by the Survey Department stating that the petitioner had encroached upon the lake area to an extent of 10 guntas. It is claimed that the respondent No.1 has been conducting the proceedings with all fairness and all opportunities were given to the petitioner. The petitioner has participated in the proceedings. Therefore, it is claimed that the impugned order is just and proper and no interference is warranted. 12. Respondent No.4 has also filed a statement of objections contending inter alia that the respondent No.3 is a total stranger to the petition schedule property and she has no - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43252 WP No. 518 of 2018 locus standi to submit a complaint. It is alleged that the complaint is designed to harass the apartment owners and to coerce the respondent No.4 to concede to her illegal demands. It is also contended that the respondent No.1 without applying his mind and without going through the provisions of Section 114-A of the Act, 1976 had initiated proceedings against it and the petitioner after nearly 11 years from the date when the khata/s was/were made out in respect of the individual apartments. The respondent No.4 has supported the case of the petitioner and has prayed that the proceedings before the respondent No.1 be quashed. 13. An application (I.A. No.1/2024) is also filed by the erstwhile owners of the property, where the development has come up, to come on record as respondent Nos.5 to 7 in this writ petition. It is stated in the application that the respondent No.4 had approached them for joint development and for construction of apartments in the property bearing Sy. Nos.16 and 45 situate at Chinnappanahalli village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk and that the respondent No.4 agreed to provide constructed and built area in the ratio of 47.5% :52.5% i.e. an extent of 47.5% to the applicants and he agreed to - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43252 WP No. 518 of 2018 retain 52.5% of built-up area. It is claimed that the BBMP had permitted the respondent No.4 to construct ground plus four upper floors consisting of 396 flats in the area of 08 acres 05 guntas. However, the respondent No.4 had illegally submitted records before the BBMP showing the area of the property as 09 Acres 04 guntas and without taking permission of the applicants and without obtaining the sanction of the BBMP, respondent No.4 had illegally constructed eight blocks. When the applicants came to know of this illegality, they filed O.S. No.3159/2024 before the LXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-69), Bengaluru City, and the Trial Court after considering an application for interim injunction, had restrained the respondent No.4 herein from alienating or encumbering the flats constructed in the suit schedule properties. Following this, one of the applicants i.e. proposed respondent No.5 filed a complaint before the Station House Officer, HAL Police Station, which resulted in Crime No.366/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The respondent No.4 approached the authorities of the BBMP without taking permission of the owners of land and the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43252 WP No. 518 of 2018 applicants and signed on the plan as if he was the owner of the land and allegedly cheated the applicants and also the BBMP. It is alleged that when the illegalities came to the notice of the authorities, the Joint Commissioner, BBMP office, Mahadevapura Zone, conducted an enquiry and submitted a report to the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, on 29.01.2018 stating that there was illegal construction put up by the respondent No.4. The Commissioner, BBMP., thereafter verified the records and submitted a report to the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Urban Development Department on 13.03.2018 stating that there were irregularities and illegalities in the construction put up by the respondent No.4 on the petition schedule property and requested to take up the matter for enquiry in the larger interest of the public to ascertain the loss caused to the BBMP. The applicants, therefore, contend that they too had interest in the outcome of this writ petition and any adverse orders that may be passed in this writ petition would affect the proceedings initiated by them before the Civil Court. 14. Learned Senior counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that the proceeding initiated by the respondent No.1 - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43252 WP No. 518 of 2018 is not traceable to Section 114-A of the Act, 1976 alone but was pursuant to the direction issued by the State Government and therefore, the respondent No.1 was justified in initiating action. He submits that the respondent No.4 has claimed that the plan sanctioned was modified but the records do not disclose that the plan that was originally sanctioned was modified. He, therefore, contends that fraud unravels all acts and therefore, respondent No.1 was justified in initiating action to unearth the fraud committed by the respondent No.4 as well as to reconsider the khata/s made out to owner/s in respect of the apartment/s constructed by the respondent No.4 on the petition schedule property. At any rate, he contends that if the respondent No.4 has obtained a modified plan and if the construction is in accordance with law, the petitioner would not suffer any hardship or injury if proceedings are taken up by the respondent No.1 either under Section 114-A of the Act, 1976 or under the residual powers of the BBMP to protect its property and to ensure the compliance of the Building Bye-laws. 15. Learned Senior counsel for the respondent No.4 submitted that, the respondent No.3 has no locus standi to file a complaint but was a busybody. He contends that the - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43252 WP No. 518 of 2018 proceedings before the respondent No.1 were clearly not maintainable under Section 114-A of the Act, 1976 and therefore, respondent No.1 was bound to first consider this question before initiating any further action. 16. Learned Senior counsel for one of the impleading applicants i.e. proposed respondent No.7 submitted that there were several illegalities committed by the respondent No.4 in putting up construction on the petition schedule property and that there are several proceedings initiated by the proposed respondent No.7 and others against the respondent No.4 before the Civil Court and various Authorities. He, therefore, contends that any finding on the legitimacy of the construction put up by the respondent No.4 would affect the impleading applicant / proposed respondent No.7. He, therefore, prays that the impleading applicant may be permitted to come on record and he may be permitted to oppose the writ petition. 17. I have considered the submissions of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned Senior counsel for - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43252 WP No. 518 of 2018 respondent No.4 and the learned Senior counsel for the impleading applicant / proposed respondent No.7. 18. A perusal of the complaint lodged by the respondent No.3 before the respondent No.1 shows that she had made several allegations against the construction put up by the respondent No.4 on the petition schedule property. As rightly contended by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, the respondent No.3 was not a person interested in the development of the property. However, the information furnished by the respondent No.3 could be considered for the purpose of initiating suo motu action. The statement of objections filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 gives an indication that the authorities of the State Government as well as the authorities of the BBMP had gone into the allegations made by the respondent No.3 against the respondent No.4 and had directed the respondent No.1 to initiate suitable action. In ordinary circumstances, the respondent No.1 was justified in initiating action under Section 114-A of the Act, 1976. However, in the instant case, it is seen that an occupation certificate is already issued by the City Municipal Council on 28.03.2006 and corresponding khatas have been made out to - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43252 WP No. 518 of 2018 the individual apartment owner/s and the properties are assessed to tax by the officials of the BBMP. It appears that the building plan was sanctioned by the City Municipal Council, Mahadevapura and a modified plan was also sanctioned by the City Municipal Council, Mahadevapura, which also issued Occupation Certificate dated 28.03.2006. The question whether such plan was sanctioned or not or modified or not is yet to be decided by the BBMP. The question whether the construction put up by the respondent No.4 on the petition schedule property is in accordance with the plan sanctioned by the City Municipal Council, Mahadevapura or the modified plan sanctioned by the CMC is under consideration by the BBMP. 19. However, the proceedings initiated by the respondent No.1 - Joint Commissioner, under Section 114-A of the Act, 1976 is not maintainable, as it was at the behest of the respondent No.3 who had no interest in the property. Even otherwise, it appears from the records placed before the Court that the respondent No.4 had developed the apartment complex after obtaining the requisite plan and licence from the City Municipal Council, Mahadevapura and therefore, the - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43252 WP No. 518 of 2018 respondent No.1 could not have entertained a proceeding under Section 114-A of the Act, 1976 after more than three years. 20. In that view of the matter, the proceedings before the respondent No.1 deserve to be halted. Hence, the following: ORDER i. This petition is allowed. ii. The impugned proceedings in Appeal No. ¸ÀA:dA.C/ªÀÄ.ªÀ/C-06/2017-18 filed by the respondent No.3, initiated by the respondent No.1 against the petitioner as well as the respondent No.4 under Section 114-A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 is quashed. However, it is open for Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike to take necessary action against the apartment complex if it is found that the construction is not in accordance with the sanctioned plan or if the plan/modified plan/Occupation Certificate issued by the - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43252 WP No. 518 of 2018 Commissioner, City Municipal Council, Mahadevapura, propounded by the respondent No.4 is not genuine. It is also open for the BBMP to take action against respondent No.4 and the apartment complex if it is found that they have encroached into public space/roads/lakes etc. If the BBMP desires to take action, the same shall be in accordance with law. iii. The rights, if any, of the impleading applicants in I.A.No.1/2024 are kept in tact and it is open for the applicants to pursue their remedy before the Appellate Court in accordance with law. SD/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SMA, BKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44