- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52631 WP No. 30167 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 30167 OF 2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: M/S S.A.ENTERPRISES, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI K V SATHYA PRAKASH, S/O K V MOODALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.118/6,16TH CROSS, IST BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560010. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. PETITIONS COMMITTEE, KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. SECRETARY, KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. 3. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, KUMARA KRUPA WEST, CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU-560020. 4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52631 WP No. 30167 of 2019 K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560009. 5. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE NORTH, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560009. 6. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560001. 7. TAHSILDAR, BANGALORE NORTH, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560009. 8. H N HARISH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O LATE NANJAPPA, R/A KURKI VILLAGE, NARASAPURA POST, KOLAR TALUK AND KOLAR DISTRICT. 9. THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI AJAY KUMAR M, ADVOCATE FOR R3, SRI B N MURALIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R8, SRI MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R1 R2 R4 TO R7 AND R9 (MA NOT FILED)) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO COMMUNICATION DATED 16.08.2018 ANDQUASH (i) COMMUNICATION DATED 16.08.2018 ISSUED BY THE R-2 (UNDER ANNEXURE-N TO THE WRIT PETITION) AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS TAKEN THERETO INCLUDING (ii)COMMUNICATION DATED 17.06.2019 ISSUED BY THE R-7 (UNDER ANENXURE-AA TO THE WRIT - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52631 WP No. 30167 of 2019 PETITION), (iii) COMMUNICATION DATED 17.06.2019 ISSUED BY THE R-5 (UNDER ANNEXURE-AB TO THE WRIT PETITION) AND (iii) COMMUNICATION DATED 18.06.2019 ISSUED BY THE R-4 (UNDER ANNEXURE-AD TO THE WRIT PETITION) AND CONSEQUENTLY ISSUE A DIRECTION TO THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY NOT TO ISSUE ANY NO OBJECTION/HAND OVER POSSESSION IN FAVOUR OF THE R-8 IN TERMS OF THE PETITIONS NOS.126 OF 2017 AND 174 OF 2017 BEFORE THE PETITION COMMITTEE OF THE KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL AND ISSUE NOC IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER AND GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER 1. Heard learned counsels appearing for the respective parties. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the communication letter dated 16.08.2018 issued by respondent No.2 (Annexure-N) and further proceedings thereto taken by the respondent-authorities against the petitioner. 3. The relevant facts for adjudication of this petition are that, the petitioner claim to be the owner of two sites measuring 18,000 square feet of 9,000 square feet, each, the having purchased by a registered Sale Deed dated 28.02.2013 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52631 WP No. 30167 of 2019 (Annexure A). Thereafter, the petitioner is in possession of the scheduled property. However, the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) (hereinafter referred to as 'BDA') has interfered with the possession of the scheduled property, on the ground that, the property in question has been acquired as per the Priliminary Notification dated 27.06.1978 followed by a Final Notification dated 09.01.1985. It is also stated in the writ petition that, the petitioner has assailed the action of the respondent in respect to the acquisition, therefore the petitioner filed WP.No.10552/2015 and WP.No.18493/2015 (Annexure-B) seeking declaration that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the property owned by the petitioner had been abandoned on account of not taking possession. It is also stated that, the respondent No.8 herein, whose mother was the owner of the property adjacent to the property of the petitioner, to an extent of 30 guntas had also approached by this Court by filing WP.No.2905/2016 and the said writ petition came to be allowed by this Court as per Annexure-C to the writ petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52631 WP No. 30167 of 2019 4. It is further the case of the petitioner that, the action taken by respondent No.1 against the petitioner has to be disputed with regard to the ownership of the property in question. It is also forthcoming from the writ petition that, OS.No.1964/2019 is pending consideration before the Competent Civil Court. Hence, it is the case of the petitioner that the impugned action of the respondent No.1 - committee has no jurisdiction to interfere with the civil rights of the parties concerned and therefore, the entire action of the respondent-authorities is outside the scope of Rule 133 of I.P.C. The Rules of Internal Procedure of the Committee of petitions in Karnataka Legislative Council (hereinafter referred to as a Rules) and hence this petition is filed. 5. It is the contention of the learned counsel Sri. Shivaprasad Shantanagoudar appearing for the petitioner that, the entire action of the respondent No.1 in Communication letter at Annexure-N and all further proceedings are required to be quashed on the sole ground, that the action of the respondent No. 1 to interfere with the civil rights of the parties is outside the scope of Rule 133 of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52631 WP No. 30167 of 2019 Rules and therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the judgment of this Court passed in WP.No.30129/2017 dated 01.07.2025 and further contended that, as the suit is pending for consideration before the Competent Civil Court and the rights of the parties are yet to be crystallized before the Competent Civil Court. Taking into consideration that the declaration of law made by this Court referred to above, and the object of Rule 133 of the aforementioned Rules. I am of the view that, communications letter addressed by respondent no.2 and therefore, the impugned actions by respondent no. 1 requires to be set aside. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE NM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19