- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15398-DB WA No. 1312 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 1312 OF 2024 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. P KISHORE KUMAR S/O P SUBRAMANYAM AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT BLOCK NO. S 2 SLC EUPHORIA RMV II STAGE DOLLARS COLONY BENGALURU-560094 …APPELLANT (BY SRI BHAT SHANKAR SHIVARAM, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER GOVINDAPURA POLICE STATION BENGALURU-560064 2. THE POLICE COMMISSIONER INFANTRY ROAD BENGALURU-560001 3. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N R SQUARE BENGALURU-560002 Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15398-DB WA No. 1312 of 2024 4. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BBMP EAST DIVISION N R SQUARE BENGALURU-560002 5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BBMP, WARD NO.23 BENGALURU-560038 6. SRI VAYYAVURU MANOHAR RAO S/O SRINIVASULU VAYYAVURU AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT VILLA NO.2 CHAITANYA SWOJAS DOSWORTH LAYOUT BOREWELL ROAD BENGALURU-560066 …RESPONDENTS (SRI PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-3 TO R-5; SRI D.S. GIRISH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-6; R-1 & R-2 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.05.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.13534/2024 BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT APPEAL AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15398-DB WA No. 1312 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) 1. The present intra Court appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 29.05.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.13534/2024 instituted by the appellant/petitioner. 2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the writ Court, for the sake of convenience. 3. The petitioner has made the following prayers in the aforesaid writ petition:- "a) To issue an order or writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 04/05/2024 passed by the 3rd Respondent-Chief Commissioner BBMP, in Appeal No.132/2023 as per Annexure-A. Consequently, directing the 6th respondent to stop the further construction of the building in the suit schedule property till obtaining the building plan sanction and license from the BBMP authorities. b) To issue an order or direction or writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the dismantling of the illegal construction as per the provisions of the BBMP Act, 2020, which is constructed by the 6th respondent on the petition schedule - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15398-DB WA No. 1312 of 2024 property bearing No.24/2, (Old No.24/6), Β.Β.Μ.P Katha No.1836/24/6/24/9, now site bearing BDA No.368, measuring 3920 sq.ft which was converted from agriculture to non- agriculture purpose vide Official Memorandum dated 21/01/2012 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District situated at Nagavara Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk now coming under the jurisdiction of B.B.M.P, Ward No.23. Further appoint a court commissioner to carry out the said exercise on behalf of the petitioner in the interest of justice and equity. c) To prohibit the 6th Respondent from occupying the building constructed on property bearing No. 24/2, (Old No.24/6) B.B.M.P Katha No.1836/24/6/24/9, now site bearing BDA No.368, measuring 3920 sq.ft which was converted from agriculture to non-agriculture purpose vide Official Memorandum dated 21/01/2012 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District situated at Nagavara Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk now coming under the jurisdiction of B.B.M.P, Ward No.23, and not to create any third party rights till the removal of the illegal construction on the petition schedule property. d) To issue direction to the 1st & 2nd respondent-police to stop the illegal construction of the building on the petition schedule property till obtaining the building plan sanction and license from the BBMP authorities." 4. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of the immovable property bearing No.24/2 (Old No.24/6), Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) Khata No.1836/24/6/ - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15398-DB WA No. 1312 of 2024 24/9, now site bearing BDA No.368 measuring 3920 sq.ft. consisting of 300 sq.ft. A.C. Sheet house with water and power connection, which was converted from agricultural to non- agricultural purpose vide Official Memorandum dated 21.01.2012 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, situated at Nagavara Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, now coming under the jurisdiction of the BBMP, Ward No.23. 5. The petitioner claims ownership of the said property on the basis of the Sale Deed dated 03.08.2022 executed in his favour by Sri Rajendra .M and Smt. Venkatalakshmi. On the other hand, the respondent No.6 claims ownership of the said site on the basis of the registered Sale Deed dated 24.11.2022 executed by one D. Thukaram. The said site was allotted in favour of D. Thukaram by Vyalikaval House Building Co- operative Society. The claim of the respondent No.6 is that he had purchased the site bearing No.368 situated at Vyalikaval, HSBC Layout, Nagavara Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk as per the Layout Plan approved by the Bengaluru - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15398-DB WA No. 1312 of 2024 Development Authority (BDA) vide its Resolution bearing No.156/2003 dated 30.09.2003. 6. According to the petitioner, his vendors viz., Sri Rajendra .M and Smt. Venkatalakshmi tried to interfere with his possession over the said property. Therefore, the petitioner filed Original Suit No.26423/2022 against his vendors and obtained an order of temporary injunction from the Court of XXVIII Additional City Civil Judge at Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru (CCH-29). The petitioner further claims that third parties i.e., the respondent No.6's vendor and others tried to interfere with his possession and also tried to demolish the temporary structure put up by him. To that effect, the petitioner gave a complaint to the jurisdictional police. When the police did not take any action, the petitioner filed PCR No.56599/2022 and thereafter, a direction was issued to the jurisdictional police to investigate the matter and to submit a report. As a result of the order passed by the XI ACMM, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru City, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.173/2022 against the respondent No.6 and others for the offences punishable under - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15398-DB WA No. 1312 of 2024 Sections 120B, 143, 149, 447, 448, 395, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. It appears that there is a dispute about the identity of the property which is the subject matter of the two sale deeds i.e., one in favour of the petitioner and the other in favour of the respondent No.6. The petitioner has alleged that the respondent No.6, without obtaining any license or sanction plan, had started construction of the building over the schedule property and despite the complaint made by the petitioner, no action was taken by the authorities concerned. Therefore, the petitioner filed W.P.No.10733/2023 seeking a direction to the respondents Nos.4 and 5 viz., Joint Commissioner and Assistant Executive Engineer of the BBMP to take action against the respondent No.6 and to stop construction in the schedule property. When the said writ petition was pending, the respondent-authorities filed a memo stating that they had already issued provisional order and confirmation order against the respondent No.6 under the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as 'the BBMP Act'). In view of the confirmation order passed by the BBMP, the said - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15398-DB WA No. 1312 of 2024 writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 19.07.2023 directing the authorities to take the proceedings against the respondent No.6 to its logical end. It was further directed that if no appeal was filed by the respondent No.6 before the Chief Commissioner, then demolition would be carried out of the unauthorised construction. 8. It is the further case of the petitioner that despite the order passed by the writ Court in W.P.No.10733/2023, the respondent No.6 never stopped the illegal construction. Therefore, the petitioner preferred another writ petition bearing W.P.No.17166/2023. This Court, vide order dated 22.01.2024, disposed of the said writ petition directing the parties to adhere to the interim order passed in Appeal No.132/2023 pending before the Chief Commissioner, wherein status quo was granted. 9. It appears that the BBMP had also made a complaint dated 31.01.2024 against the respondent No.6 to the jurisdictional police station (Govindapura Police Station) to stop the illegal construction of the building being constructed by the respondent No.6. When the respondent No.6 did not stop the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15398-DB WA No. 1312 of 2024 construction despite the order of status quo passed by the Chief Commissioner in Appeal No.132/2023 and the direction of the writ Court to adhere to the interim order, and police had also failed to take any action on the complaint of the BBMP, the petitioner filed yet another writ petition bearing W.P.No.7397/2024. The writ Court called upon the jurisdictional Assistant Director of Town Planning to visit the subject property and file a report on the stage of construction put up by the respondent No.6 and whether the construction was continued despite the order of status quo passed in Appeal No.132/2023. After obtaining the report, this Court disposed of the said writ petition vide order dated 26.03.2024 with an observation that if the question of deviation from the sanction plan was being examined in Appeal No.132/2023, all disputes in that regard must necessarily be examined in such proceedings. It was also recorded that the Appellate Authority had heard the parties and reserved the appeal for orders. The respondent No.6 must necessarily comply with the order of status quo and not to undertake any further construction, but if the respondent No.6 continued with the construction, the petitioner should be reserved liberty to seek dismissal of the appeal even on such - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15398-DB WA No. 1312 of 2024 ground and also initiate every proceeding that could be initiated for acting in violation of the interim order. 10. The Chief Commissioner and Appellate Authority of the BBMP, vide order dated 04.05.2024 in Appeal No.132/2023, had held that on the basis of the sale deed in favour of the respondent No.6, khata was issued by the BDA, Possession Certificate was issued by the Vyalikaval House Building Co- operative Society, Khata Certificate was issued by the BBMP and khata endorsement was verified. On the basis of the said documents, the BDA approved the layout in favour of the Vyalikaval House Building Co-operative Society and out of formation of sites in the said layout, Site No.368 allotted to D. Thukaram on 21.12.2006 was purchased by the respondent No.6 on 24.11.2022. It was further held by the Chief Commissioner, BBMP that D. Thukaram took possession of the property and even as per the BBMP documents, the khata of the said property stood in the name of D. Thukaram and khata registered as Site No. 333/368 in the name of D. Thukaram and subsequently, the khata was made over in the name of the respondent No.6 as per the Sale Deed dated 24.11.2022. It - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15398-DB WA No. 1312 of 2024 was further said that the provisional and confirmation orders were passed on the ground of complaint of the petitioner. The documents produced by the respondent No.6 were verified and the documents produced by the petitioner were also verified. As the action was taken without verifying the documents of the respondent No.6 only on the complaint of the petitioner, the Appellate Authority found that taking action on the basis of the complaint without verifying the documents was not proper. The Appellate Authority set aside the notice under Section 248(3) dated 11.05.2023 and the confirmation order passed by the BBMP were set aside. The BBMP was directed to initiate action as per Section 248(1) to (3) of the BBMP Act. 11. This order of the Appellate Authority was the subject matter of challenge by the petitioner in W.P.No.13534/2024. The learned Single Judge, considering the submission of the respondent No.6 that he had made an application on 21.06.2023 for building permission before the order dated 04.05.2024 was passed in Appeal No.132/2023 and the said aspect had not been considered by the Chief Commissioner. The learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15398-DB WA No. 1312 of 2024 holding that in the order passed by the Chief Commissioner, the relevant contentions and more importantly, the fact that the respondent No.6 had filed an application on 21.06.2023 in terms of sub-section (8) of Section 240 of the BBMP Act, seeking sanction of the building plan had not been considered and now that the matter is pending consideration before the Assistant Executive Engineer, the Assistant Executive Engineer has been directed to consider the plan submitted by the respondent No.6. It has been further observed that if the respondent No.6 has put up a construction without there being any sanctioned building plan, action should be taken in terms of sub-section (8) of Section 240 of the BBMP Act. 12. So far as the alleged illegal construction having been put up by the respondent No.6 is concerned, the learned Single Judge has observed that such a dispute cannot be raised before the Commissioner in terms of Section 248 of the BBMP Act and the grievance of the petitioner has to be redressed before the competent Civil Court. At any rate, as the illegal construction has already been brought to the notice of the officers of the BBMP, the BBMP has to proceed to take action in accordance - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15398-DB WA No. 1312 of 2024 with law having regard to the subsequent application filed by the respondent No.6. 13. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 14. If it is found that the respondent No.6 has put up illegal construction on the site in question without there being proper sanction plan or in violation of the orders passed by the competent Court, the BBMP must proceed against the respondent No.6 in accordance with law within a period of two months from today. We are not interfering with the direction issued by the learned Single Judge for considering the application of the respondent No.6 for approving the building plan as per law. 15. With the aforesaid clarification and a direction to take appropriate action if the competent authority of the BBMP is of the opinion that the respondent No.6 has put up illegal construction, we dispose of this writ appeal. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15398-DB WA No. 1312 of 2024 In view of disposal of the writ appeal, pending IAs, if any, do not survive for consideration and accordingly, they stand disposed of. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE BKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20