Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 27811 (KAR)

SRI B V KRISHNAMURTHY BHAT v. THE COMMISSIONER

WP/38614/2025 · 2026-06-22

B M Shyam Prasad

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30929 WP No. 38614 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 38614 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: SRI B V KRISHNAMURTHY BHAT S/O B.T. VENKATA KRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO. 114, 11TH MAIN, J.C. NAGAR, KURUBARAHALLI, NEAR KEB OFFICE, BANGALORE - 560 086. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JAVEED S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP) N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU 560002. 2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER BBMP YELAHANKA ZONE, BENGALURU 560064. 3. THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER (ARO) WARD NO. 71, HEGGANAHALLI, BBMP, Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30929 WP No. 38614 of 2025 BENGALURU - 560091. 4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KAMAKSHI PALYA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU 560079. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KARTHIKEYAN B S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 IF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE R1 TO R4 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN, TO THE RESPONDENTS DATED 30.10.23 AND 24.06.24 WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNX-C AND D RESPECTIVELY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner, who asserts ownership of a certain immovable property under the sale deed dated 13.06.2019, has filed a representation with the third respondent [the jurisdictional Assistant Revenue Officer] stating that his property has been encroached - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30929 WP No. 38614 of 2025 by a certain third person and this respondent must take action to ensure that the encroachment does not occur. This Court must opine that if there is an encroachment, it would be a cause for a civil suit and not for direction to the authorities. With liberty to the petitioner, the petition stands disposed of. SD/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE NV