- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54407 WP No. 38457 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 38457 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: KRISHNA GEET SHELTER FLAT OWNERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960 KRISHNA GEET SHELTERS, SY.NO.41/4, 16TH 'E' CROSS, 1ST MAIN, PAI LAYOUT, DOORVANINAGAR POST, NEAR TIN FACTORY, BENGALURU - 560 016 REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ARUNKUMAR K., SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONGWITH MISS. INDIA S PANCHAGAVI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY REP. BY ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER, N.R. SQUARE, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 002 2. BANGALORE EAST CITY CORPORATION REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, MAHADEVAPURA ZONAL OFFICE, RHB COLONY, OPP. TO PHOENIX MALL, WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 048 3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BANGALORE EAST CITY CORPORATION, HAL AIRPORT SUB-DIVISION, M.E.G. EXTENSION, 2ND MAIN ROAD, Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54407 WP No. 38457 of 2025 AKASHNAGAR, BENGALURU-560 016 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 02.12.2025 BEARING NO.G.B.M./SA.KA.A/HAL AIRPORT U.V/P.R NO/349/25-26 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 (ANNEXURE-A) IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE B PROPERTY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged a notice bearing No.GBM/Sa.Ka.A/HAL Airport U.V./P.R.No.349/25-26 dated 02.12.2025 issued by the respondent No.3 by which, it was directed to vacate the encroachment on the road, failing which, steps would be taken to remove the encroachment. 2. (i) The petitioner is an Apartment Owners' Association. It claims that Sy.No.41/4 of B. Narayanapura village, Krishnarajapura Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru, measuring 61338 sq. ft. belonged to one Sri. C. Ashok, who sold 6710 sq. ft. in favour of a developer. Sri. C. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54407 WP No. 38457 of 2025 Ashok and his children thereafter entered into a joint development agreement on 01.08.2005 with the developer to develop his property as well as property measuring 6710 sq. ft. The petitioner contends that a plan was approved by the Mahadevapura City Municipal Council on 15.07.2005 for construction of a residential apartment complex. The apartment complex was constructed block-wise with B - Block being the first to be built, thereafter A - Block and then C - Block was built. The petitioner contends that there are 139 flats, which were constructed. It also contends that from the entrance gate of the apartment complex, there is a driveway measuring 20 feet around the apartment complex that leads to the parking area. The land owners and the developer had sold all the flats in the apartment complex. It is contended that the developer has exited from the project and all the residents have occupied. It is contended that there is a property adjacent to the apartment complex, where a recreation club is run by the land owner. At the rear side of A - Block, a gate is provided for the club for exclusive usage of the residents of the complex. The club was thereafter shutdown due to some controversy. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54407 WP No. 38457 of 2025 (ii) The petitioner contends that there is no road running through Sy.No.41/4 or in any area adjoining Sy.No.41/1. However, during the year 2022, the land owner who had started club, started claiming access through the apartment driveway and started interfering with the schedule B property. The petitioner contends that the respondent No.3 had issued a notice dated 26.11.2024 calling upon the petitioner to produce documents to prove the non-existence of a public road within the apartment complex. The petitioner replied to the same contending that there was no road running through their property and requested the respondent No.3 to withdraw the notice. The respondent No.3 then directed a survey at the instance of some interested persons. The Taluka Surveyor prepared a report stating that the apartment complex had encroached 20 feet area reserved for a road. Following this report, impugned notice was issued to the petitioner by the respondent No.3 calling upon it to remove the encroachment, failing which, steps would be taken to remove the encroachment. (iii) The petitioner is therefore, before this Court challenging the aforesaid notice. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54407 WP No. 38457 of 2025 3. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the apartment complex was constructed long back and 20 feet road, which the Taluka Surveyor claimed to be a road, is a driveway for all the residents and is not a road. He contends that the erstwhile owner of the land where apartment complex is constructed is misusing the law and has got the impugned notice issued. He contends that the owner is trying to gain access to his property through driveway of the petitioner. He therefore, contends that the impugned notice is one without due application of mind and therefore, is liable to be set aside. 4. The impugned notice is one issued by the respondent No.3 based on a report of the Tahsildar which indicates that some road adjoining the property of the petitioner was encroached. It could be that this report of the Tahsildar was based on the complaints lodged by the erstwhile owner of the property. The petitioner instead of replying to the said notice has rushed to this Court. Therefore, no indulgence can be shown to the petitioner in this writ petition at this stage. 5. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54407 WP No. 38457 of 2025 6. However, the petitioner is permitted to file its reply to the impugned notice within fifteen days from today. The respondent No.3 shall consider the said reply and pass appropriate orders within a period of one month thereafter. 7. Until the respondent No.3 considers the reply that may be submitted by the petitioner, the respondents shall hold their hands and not take any precipitative action against the petitioner or building in question pursuant to the impugned notice dated 02.12.2025. 8. Sri. Pawan Kumar, learned counsel for respondents is permitted to file memo of appearance within ten days from today. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR List No.: 4 Sl No.: 1