- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34221 RFA No. 1567 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1567 OF 2018 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. ASHWIN R PALLEGAR AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O LATE H P RAJASHEKAR 2. SRI. RAJESH R PALLEGAR AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O LATE H P RAJASHEKAR 3. SRI SANJAY R PALLEGAR AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O LATE H P RAJASHEKAR ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF ‘SUMUKHA’ NO.12/4, MIRZA ROAD, NAZARBAD MYSURU – 570 010. A2, A3 ARE REPRESENTED BY A1-ASHWINI R PALLEGAR …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. B C SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34221 RFA No. 1567 of 2018 AND: 1. THE CHAIRMAN BENGALURU WATER SUPPLY & SEWERAGE BOARD CAUVERY BHAVAN K G ROAD BENGALURU – 560 009. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BENGALURU WATER SUPPLY & SEWERAGE BOARD NORTH EAST-2 DIVISION, 19TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU – 560 055. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.S.NARAYAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)(VC) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 R/W.ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.08.2018 PASSED IN OS NO.7840/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE AND ETC., THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34221 RFA No. 1567 of 2018 ORAL JUDGMENT This Regular First Appeal is filed by the appellants / plaintiffs calling in question the judgment and decree dated 21.08.2018 passed in O.S No.7840/2015 by the V Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru City, whereby the suit filed for permanent injunction is decreed. 2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. 3. The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants/respondents. The Trial Court partly decreed the suit against the defendants but made an observation in the operative portion of the order which reads as follows: “defendants are at liberty to take any action in accordance with provisions of law, as contemplated under BWSS Act for removal of any obstructions either in the suit schedule property or any adjacent open space where water pipeline is laid for its supervision, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34221 RFA No. 1567 of 2018 maintenance etc., in restoring the free movement for its inspection, repairs, supervision etc.” 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the plaintiffs apprehend that, under the guise of the liberty given to the defendants, the defendants may cause disturbance and hindrance by encroaching on the property of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the learned counsel prays to expunge the said observation made in the operative portion of the order. 5. There is some force in the argument made by the learned counsel for the appellants. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants has filed a memo for the disposal of the appeal, which reads as under: “Undersigned Advocate for the Appellants submits that the above appeal is filed being aggrieved by the superfluous observations made in the operative portion of the judgment dated 18.08.2018. It is - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34221 RFA No. 1567 of 2018 submitted that the Appellants have pleaded that the Respondents have statutory rights to enter any private property to lay water and sewage lines and waterlines while having right to repair, maintain the pipelines under the provisions of Sections 38 to 40 of the BWSS Act. The Appellants were made to approach the Hon'ble City Civil Court by filing O.S.No. 7840/2015 because the 2nd Respondent herein had interfered with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property belonging to the Appellants by unnecessarily damaging the path in front of their main gate and was threatening to dig up the area under which an old unused and defunct pipeline is said to exist on the northern edge of the plaint Schedule property during December 2014 and September 2015. During the pendency of the above appeal and upon the directions issued by this Hon'ble Court, the present incumbent of the 2nd Respondent office has filed an affidavit along with sketch showing existence of defunct pipelines on the Northern side of the plaint Schedule property. Thus, it is clear that there are no live waterlines functioning in the pipes running on the northern side of the plaint Schedule property. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34221 RFA No. 1567 of 2018 The deponent has spoken about the future plans of reviving those defunct pipelines. The Appellants have no objection for the BWSSB to revive or re-lay the defunct pipeline as and when there is a need for the same, by strictly following the statutory provisions of Sections 38 to 40 of BWSS Act. In view of the above the Appellants pray that the operative portion of the Judgment and Decree may kindly be modified by deleting "the defendants are at liberty to take any action in accordance with provisions of law as contemplated under BWSS Act for removal of any obstructions either in the suit schedule property or any adjacent open space where water pipeline is laid for its supervision, maintenance, etc., in restoring the free movement for its inspection, repairs, supervision etc.," in the interest of justice.” 7. The memo dated 06.07.2026 is placed on record. There is no objection by the defendant – BWSSB to the memo filed by the appellants/plaintiffs. 8. In the second page of the memo, the appellants have stated that they have no objection to the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (for short ‘BWSSB’) - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34221 RFA No. 1567 of 2018 reviving or re-laying the defunct pipeline, as and when the need arises, provided that it strictly follows the statutory provisions contained in Sections 38 to 40 of the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1964 (for short ‘BWSS Act’). 9. In view of the undertaking given by the appellants, as stated above, the BWSSB shall not encroach upon the plaintiffs' property for the purpose of reviving or re-laying the defunct pipeline, as and when required, except by strictly following the procedure prescribed under Sections 38 to 40 of the BWSS Act. Therefore, in view of the said undertaking, the observation made by the Trial Court in the operative portion of the order, as referred to above, is not required. Accordingly, that portion of the operative order granting such liberty is hereby set aside and deleted. 10. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34221 RFA No. 1567 of 2018 ORDER i) The appeal is disposed of. ii) The portion of the operative order granting such liberty as stated above is hereby deleted. iii) The copy of the memo shall be read as part and parcel of the order. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE UN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50