- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:528 WP No. 31281 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 31281 OF 2018 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: SMT SHAKUNTHALA W/O NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.15, 4TH CROSS ,5TH ‘A’ MAIN S R NAGAR BANGALORE-560 027 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. C M NAGABUSHANA ., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BHRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER N R ROAD, CORPORATION CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 002 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER VASANTHANAGAR SUB-DIVISION, B.B.M.P. MEENAKSHI KOIL STREET, VASANTHANAGAR BANGALORE-560 052 …RESPONDENTS SMT. NETHRAVATHI W/O B. BALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. T.S.42, 5TH MAIN, S.R. NAGAR, BANGALORE-560027. PROPOSED RESPONDENT NO.3 (BY SRI. B.S. KARTHIKEYAN., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:528 WP No. 31281 of 2018 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS THAT THE ACTION OF SECOND RESPONDENT INITITING AGAINST THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY IS CONTRARY TO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF THE PETITIONER GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA SINCE THE SAME AFFECTS THE PROTECTION OF LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs; a. Issue a writ of mandamus that the action of second respondent initiating action against the schedule property is contrary to fundamental right of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India since the same affects the protection of life and personal liberty, b. Issue writ of Prohibition, prohibiting the threatened illegal action of the 2nd respondent in respect of the schedule property, since the threatened action is contrary to Law and violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. c. Issue Writ of Mandamus or Direction of the same nature directing the respondents not to proceed with their action to demolish the Chajjas, extension in front of the main door or any portion of the schedule property; d. Issue any other appropriate order/orders as deem fit in the circumstances of this case, including the cost of this writ petition. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are proposing to take action against the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:528 WP No. 31281 of 2018 petitioner’s construction on the basis of the complaint alleging that the petitioner has encroached upon a 3 feet passageway. 3. His submission is that there is no provision which contemplates such a purpose under the erstwhile BBMP Act or the GBA Act, inasmuch as the respondent-corporation can only take action, if there is violation of the building bylaws and/or the plan sanction which has been granted and not as regards the encroachment of a passageway which at the most would be a civil dispute required to be adjudicated before a Competent Civil Court. 4. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 would submit that apart from the encroachment of 3-foot- wide passageway the petitioner has also not left any setbacks requiring the respondents to action against the petitioner. 5. Having heard both the counsels and perusal of the impugned notice which indicates only a reference - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:528 WP No. 31281 of 2018 which has been made to encroachment of the 3-foot- wide passageway and not as regards the violation of the applicable building bylaws and/or plan sanction. 6. That being so, the notice has also not been issued under any particular provision of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 except to refer to Section 308 thereof and calling upon for the alleged encroachment is required to be removed. 7. As indicated supra, there is no powers with the respondent-Corporation to exercise its jurisdiction when a compliant has been filed as regards the encroachment of any passageway/property of a third property. Respondents can only initiate action if there is a violation of the building bylaws and/or plan sanction. As such, I pass the following; ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The respondents are restrained from acting on the notice dated 23.03.2018, liberty is - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:528 WP No. 31281 of 2018 however, reserved to the respondents to take such action as may be permissible under law. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29