- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32875 WP No. 27552 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 27552 OF 2019 (BDA) BETWEEN: 1. KARKAL MANSOOR ALI S/O. KARKAL ABDUL RAHIMAN, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS 2. HUSNE HARA W/O. KARKAL MANSOOR ALI, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 3. ALIA MANSOOR D/O. KARKAL MANSOOR ALI, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS 4. SIDDIQUE MUKKAMMIL AHMED S/O. FAYYAZ AHMED AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT MAANGALYA RESIDENCES - WINTER 213/313, PLOT NO.6/1, BENSON CROSS ROAD, BENSON TOWN, BENGALURU-560045. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MRINAL KUTTAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. LEELA P. DEVADIGA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001, REPRESENTED BY Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32875 WP No. 27552 of 2019 ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BANGALORE-560020, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 3. THE PRESIDENT BHARAT ELECTRONICS EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING BUILDING SOCIETY LTD 1ST FLOOR, BEL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., JALAHALLI POST, BANGALORE-560013. 4. THE TAHSILDAR YELAHANKA TALUK MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA YELAHANKA BANGALORE-560064. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. POOJA M. KOORSE, HCGP FOR R1 AND R4; SRI. G. LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SMT. VIDYAVATI M. KOTTUR SHETTAR, ADV. FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 14.05.2019 ANNEXURE-A BEARING NO.BDA/EO- 2/NORTH DIVISION/ARK/BR/2018-19/T-12 ISSUED BY THE R-2 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO SITE NOS.2B/68, 9/74, 10/7, 16/69, 19/72, 20/70, 21/73 ALL SITUATED AT VIDYARANYAPURA NARSIPURA VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH BANGALORE AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32875 WP No. 27552 of 2019 ORAL ORDER The petitioners have challenged an order bearing No.BDA/EO-2/North Division/ARK/BR/2018-19/T-12 dated 14.05.2019 issued by the respondent No.2 in so far as it relates to site Nos. 2B/68, 9/74, 10/7, 16/69, 19/72, 20/70, 21/73 all situated at Vidyarnayapura, Narasipura Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. They have also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.2 to pay compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- to each of the petitioners as damages for illegal demolition of the structures put up by them. 2. (i) The petitioners claim that they are the absolute owners of the aforesaid sites, they having purchased them from the erstwhile owners, who were allotted the said sites under the Ashraya Scheme. The petitioners claim that they paid the property tax and betterment charges to City Municipal Council (henceforth referred to as 'CMC'), Byatarayanapura in the year 2002 to 2007 and thereafter obtained sanction of a license and plan from the CMC, Byatarayanapura. They claim that subsequent to the purchase of the aforesaid sites and after area where the sites were situate was included within the limits - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32875 WP No. 27552 of 2019 of Municipal Corporation, they got their names entered in the property register and have been paying the property tax. They contend that some of the petitioners have raised a compound and have constructed permanent buildings over the aforesaid sites. (ii) The petitioners contend that on 18.05.2019 at about 11.00 a.m. they were informed that the structures standing in their respective sites are being demolished. They immediately rushed to the spot and found an engineer from the respondent No.2, who was leading the demolition team and was assisted by heavy police force. The petitioners claim that their requests to stop the demolition were discarded and they were threatened of arrest in case if they obstructed the demolition. The petitioners therefore submitted a representation dated 31.05.2019 to the respondent No.2 on 03.06.2019 and also brought the illegal demolition to the notice of the engineer member of the respondent No.2, which were of no avail. The petitioners are therefore before this Court seeking the aforementioned reliefs. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32875 WP No. 27552 of 2019 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the owners of the aforesaid sites and respondent No.2 without hearing the petitioners has passed an order dated 14.05.2019 to demolish the structures on the ground that the petitioners have unauthorizedly encroached into a property belonging to it. He submits that respondent No.2 without conducting proper enquiry and without calling for records from the revenue authorities, straightaway demolished the structures and building. He further submits that the petitioners have invested their hard earned money to put the structures and the respondent No.2 has demolished the same without giving prior notice or hearing them. Therefore being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court challenging the order dated 14.05.2019 passed by the respondent No.2 and they have also sought for damages of Rs.6,00,000/- to each of the petitioners. 4. (i) The petition is opposed by the respondent No.2, who has filed a statement of objections contending that the respondent No.3 - Bharath Electronics Employees Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., had purchased 107 acres 5 guntas - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32875 WP No. 27552 of 2019 of land in Sy.No.1(p) 2 to 14 and 21 to 25 of Narasipura Village and 22 acres of 15 guntas in Thindlu village and got the same converted for residential purpose in the year 1974 for formation of a residential layout. The society applied for sanction of a layout plan from the erstwhile City Improvement Trust Board (henceforth referred to as 'CITB') during the year 1974. After scrutiny of the draft plan, the Board of CITB approved the residential layout plan vide resolution Nos.3236 dated 29.05.1974 and No.3450 dated 31.07.1974. Accordingly, work order was issued and 1601 sites were formed and released in favour of the society. (ii) Thereafter, the layout plan was modified by making minor changes in the plan. The society executed a relinquishment deed on 30.04.1994 in favour of the respondent authority in respect of civic amenity sites, parks and roads. Amongst the civic amenities relinquished, CA site No.10 was one of them. The said CA site is carved out of Sy.No.1 of Narasipura Village. It is therefore claimed that the respondent authority is the owner of CA site No.10 in the layout formed by the Society. However, the petitioners having no right over the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32875 WP No. 27552 of 2019 said CA site No.10 tried to interfere with the possession of the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 therefore called for report from its Executive Engineer. After perusing the report of the Executive Engineer, the impugned order is passed in respect of CA site No.10, which is in accordance with law. (iii) The respondent No.2 denied the assertions made in the Writ Petition, where it is claimed that the petitioners had purchased the sites from the erstwhile owners who were allotted sites under the Ashraya scheme. It claimed that the land in question never belonged to the State Government and therefore, issuance of a Hakku Patra, making of khata certificate, payment of tax, sanction of licence etc. in favour of petitioners, which are subsequent to the relinquishment deed in favour of the respondent No.2, has no sanctity in the eye of law and are non est and are liable to be discarded. (iv) It also contended that it did not demolish any structure as contended therein but when the petitioners were about to put up construction, the respondent No.2 interfered with the same and removed the encroachment. It is alleged that the photographs produced along with the Writ Petition - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32875 WP No. 27552 of 2019 does not pertain to the sites in question. Thus, it is contended that petitioners having no manner of right, title or interest in any portion of Civic Amenity site No.10, cannot challenge the impugned order, which was issued only to protect the interest of the respondent No.2 in CA site No.10 and the petitioners are not entitled to any compensation as the respondent No.2 did not demolish any construction. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners after being satisfied that sites were allotted to their predecessors under the Ashraya Scheme had lawfully purchased them in terms of various sale deeds. He further contends that the petitioners had lawfully constructed buildings over the site so purchased and respondent No.2 was bound to issue a notice before taking any precipitative action to demolish the construction. He thus contends that without an enquiry, respondent No.2 could not have taken law into its hands and demolish the construction. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 reiterated the contentions raised in the statement of objections and contended that the house building co-operative society - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32875 WP No. 27552 of 2019 which had formed the layout had relinquished CA site No.10 amongst other sites and that the petitioners claim semblance of right in respect to the said CA site, which is already relinquished in favour of the respondent No.2. He therefore contends that the petitioners are trespassers who have encroached into property belonging to the respondent No.2 and that in an effort to protect the interest of the respondent No.2, the impugned order was passed. He also contends that if the petitioners have any civil right, they are bound to establish the same before Civil Court and not by challenging the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2. 7. The learned High Court Government Pleader reiterated the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 8. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 and 4. 9. The petitioners claim that they have purchased the aforesaid sites from their predecessors, who were allotted sites - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32875 WP No. 27552 of 2019 under the Ashraya scheme. The petitioners have placed on record the Hakku Patras, which were purportedly given by the respondent No.4 under the Ashraya scheme. However, there is no reference as to in which survey number, these sites are formed. On the contrary, it is mentioned in these Hakku Patras that the sites so formed lie within the Grama Tana area of Narasipura Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. Since, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the sites purchased by the petitioners lay within Sy.No.11 of the Narasipura, this Court in terms of an order dated 18.06.2026 called upon the petitioner to establish that the sites they purchased lie within Sy.No.11 and was not the property of the house building co-operative society. The petitioners have not produced any documents in support of their claim that these sites are formed in Sy.No.11 and that Sy.No.11 is not part of the development plan sanctioned by the predecessor of respondent No.2. 10. A perusal of the impugned order also shows that the respondent No.2 merely proposed to remove the unauthorized construction put up on the CA site No.10 in - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32875 WP No. 27552 of 2019 Sy.No.11 of Thindlu, Narasipura Village. If the CA site No.10 is already relinquished to the respondent No.2 much prior to the alleged grant of sites to the predecessors of the petitioners, that cannot affect the right of the respondent No.2 to protect its possession in CA site No.10. 11. In that view of the matter, no indulgence is warranted with the impugned order. Hence, the petition is dismissed. It is open for the petitioners to establish their right before the Civil Court in accordance with law. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31