- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32415 WP No. 15201 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 15201 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: RAJASHREE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL COMPANY PVT LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.144A, BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL AREA, HOSUR ROAD, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE - 560099 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. V. VARADARAJU. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MANJUNATH S.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD BANGALORE - 560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT, KANDAYA BHAVANA Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32415 WP No. 15201 of 2025 BANGALORE - 560002. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR ANEKAL TALUK, CHANDAPURA BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT - 560099. 4. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD NO. 14/3, 2ND FLOOR, RASTROTHANNA PARISHATH BUILDING NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SHAMANTH NAIK., HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. H.N. VASUDEV, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 6.05.2025 PRODUCED AT ANNX-J; DIRECTING THE R-3 RESTRAIN DESIST FROM TAKING ANY ACTION OF DEMOLITION OF BUILDING OR ANY TO HER ACT IN THE INDUSTRIAL PLOT BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER WITHOUT FOLLOWING DUE PROCESS OF LAW. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32415 WP No. 15201 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner has the benefit of an allotment from M/s. Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board [KIADB - the fourth respondent], and the petitioner is aggrieved because of the third respondent's decision to demolish certain constructions. Sri S.Manjunath, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that when the petitioner filed the petition, the demolition was underway but with the present petition the demolition has been stopped. Sri Shamanth Naik, the learned High Court Government Pleader who is permitted to place on record a memo with certain documents, states, with the assistance of this document, that the petitioner is indeed allotted a plot by the fourth respondent and this plot abuts on its north a natural water course; that the petitioner has constructed a compound - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32415 WP No. 15201 of 2025 encroaching the water course and a toilet constraining the third respondent to take immediate action. However, when queried, if the learned counsel for the petitioner states that no notice was issued, Sri.Shamanth Naik submits that he will have to secure instructions. This Court cannot but observe that the petitioner could be justified in contending that demolition is without notice but insofar as the relief that must be for disposal of this petition, it would suffice for the Court to observe, on going through the records including the documents that are now placed on record, that the authorities as also the petitioner must maintain status quo as regards the area that is identified or indicated by the third respondent as a watercourse and the third respondent must cause notice before further action is taken. With liberty in this regard to the third respondent and calling upon the petitioner, subject to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32415 WP No. 15201 of 2025 such notice being issued within the next eight [8] weeks, to maintain status quo on the drain on the property identified. The status quo now directed shall not come in the way of the petitioner ensuring that there is temporary structure to protect its remaining property. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SA ct:sr