- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27212 WP No. 11590 of 2015 C/W RFA No. 484 of 2014 RFA No. 602 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 11590 OF 2015 (LB-BMP) C/W REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 484 OF 2014 REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 602 OF 2021 IN WP No. 11590/2015 BETWEEN: SRI G NARAYANA S/O SRI. S. GOPALAKRISHNAN, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, NO.22, GOVER ROAD, COX TOWN, BBMP WARD NO.79, BANGALORE-560 005. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. H. V. KRISHNAMURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. H. P. LEELADHAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R. SQUARE, J.C. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 002. Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27212 WP No. 11590 of 2015 C/W RFA No. 484 of 2014 RFA No. 602 of 2021 2. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, C.V. RAMAN NAGAR SUB-DIVISION, 1ST A CROSS, 2ND MAIN ROAD, KASTURI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 043. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SATYANAND B S., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN APPEAL NO.1373/2012[REV] DTD.16.2.2015 VIDE ANNEX-A. IN RFA NO. 484/2014 BETWEEN: DR C M BALAKRISHNAN S/O C.R. MOHAN RAM, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, NO.21/1, GOVER ROAD, COX TOWN, SARVAGNANAGAR, BANGALORE-560005. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. MANIAN K B S., ADVOCATE) AND: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27212 WP No. 11590 of 2015 C/W RFA No. 484 of 2014 RFA No. 602 of 2021 1. G NARAYAN S/O NOT KNOW TO THE PLAINTIFF, MAJOR BY AGE, NO.22, GOVER ROAD, COX TOWN, SARVAGNANAGAR, BANGALORE-53. 2. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BANGALORE. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H. V. KRISHNAMURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B. S. SATHYANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.3.2014 PASSED IN O.S.NO.8120/2012 ON THE FILE OF XXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION. IN RFA NO. 602/2021 BETWEEN: 1. SRI G NARAYANA S/O LATE GOPALAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT NO.22 GOVER ROAD COX TOWN BANGALORE - 560 005 ...APPELLANT - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27212 WP No. 11590 of 2015 C/W RFA No. 484 of 2014 RFA No. 602 of 2021 (BY SRI. H. V. KRISHNAMURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. H. P. LEELADHAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DR C M BALAKRISHNAN S/O LATE C R MOHAN RAM AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS NO.21/1 GOVER ROAD COX TOWN BANGALORE - 560 005 2. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE HUDSON CIRCLE BANGALORE - 560 002 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE C V RAMAN NAGAR DIVISION 1ST CROSS 2ND H MAIN ROAD KASTURINAGAR BANGALORE - 560 043 4. THE CHIEF HEALTH OFFICER BBMP CORPORATION OFFICE HUDSON CIRCLE BANGALORE - 560 032 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. B. S. MANIAN, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SUMANGALA GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4) THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.04.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.7883/2014 ON THE FILE OF XXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27212 WP No. 11590 of 2015 C/W RFA No. 484 of 2014 RFA No. 602 of 2021 BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION. THE WRIT PETITION AND THE REGULAR FIRST APPEALS ARE COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The dispute is between the owners of two neighboring properties. The appellant in R.F.A.No.484/2014 has filed the original suit in O.S.No.8120/2012 on the file of the XXVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore for permanent injunction against the petitioner in W.P.No.11590/2015 alleging construction contrary to the sanction plan and with a request for a mandatory injunction directing the petitioner to remove the alleged illegal construction. The petitioner has filed his original suit in O.S.No.7883/2014 on the file of the XXVII Additional - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27212 WP No. 11590 of 2015 C/W RFA No. 484 of 2014 RFA No. 602 of 2021 City Civil Judge, Bangalore, and this suit is dismissed. This petitioner has filed appeal in R.F.A.No.602/2021 impugning the common judgment in O.S.No.7883/2014 and O.S.No.8120/2012. 2. The petitioner has called in question the outcome in the proceedings under Section 321 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 [for short, 'the KMC Act']. The Apex Court has disposed of a petition observing that the appeals may be disposed of expeditiously and preferably within six months. This Court has thereafter heard the learned counsels for the parties and also provided opportunities to the appellant and the petitioner to reconcile their differences. This Court has also appointed an expert to visit the property and suggest reconciliation that would be acceptable to both parties. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27212 WP No. 11590 of 2015 C/W RFA No. 484 of 2014 RFA No. 602 of 2021 3. Presently, a Joint Memorandum of Settlement is filed. The petitioner and the appellant1 are present, and they are identified by their respective counsels and they accept that both the petition and appeals could be disposed of in terms of the compromise, which requires, amongst others, the petitioner to make certain changes within his property. The agreed terms read as under: "1. The Respondent/Defendant without reference to the issue of building byelaw violation being set right as required by the BBMP and without prejudice thereto shall permanently install a barricade over the compound wall of the respondent separating the schedule B property belonging to the Appellant and bearing Municipal No.21/1 Gover Road, Bangalore 560 005 from the Respondents premises described in Schedule A to the suit bearing No.22, Gover Road, Cox Town, Bangalore 560 005. Consequently, on 1 The Appellant in R.F.A.No.484/2014 is referred to as the appellant and the appellant in R.F.A.No.602/2021 is commonly referred to as the petitioner. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27212 WP No. 11590 of 2015 C/W RFA No. 484 of 2014 RFA No. 602 of 2021 due execution of the barricade and in maintaining the same during all times in future, by the Respondent, the Appellant in consideration thereof withdraws his complaints against the Respondent. 2. The barricade shall be in accordance with the technical specifications as determined by the architect appointed by the Appellant., Mrs. Sowmya carrying out business in the name of M/s Rach & Sekhar + Architects Cox Town, Bangalore 560005 and the same shall be executed in accordance with the plan attached hereto as Annexure A and as directed by Mrs. Sowmya. The barricade shall be deemed to have been completed as per these terms only on joint certification by Mrs. Sowmya and Mr. Balraj (a neighbor-mediator) aged about 71 years, residing at Domain Apartments No. 3 and 5, Grover Road, Cox Town, Bangalore 560 005. 3. The entire cost of erection including material, labor and maintenance of the barricade shall be that of the Respondent. The barricade shall remain as a permanent affixture, and the Appellant shall be entitled to have the same permanently affixed and - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27212 WP No. 11590 of 2015 C/W RFA No. 484 of 2014 RFA No. 602 of 2021 maintained at the cost of the Respondent during the existence of the building constructed by the Respondent over his premises described in Schedule A to the suit. Both parties are responsible for maintenance of their side of the barricade and for the normal wear and tear or damage if any." 4. This Court is persuaded to accept that the parties have agreed to resolve the dispute in a manner that should not give room for further precipitation, and hence, the terms of settlement are accepted disposing of the appeals accordingly and allowing the writ petition dissolving the proceedings under the KMC Act. The office is directed to draw decree accordingly. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE RB