Karnataka High Court
M/S Bhartiya Urban Pvt Ltd vs The Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike on 2 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:5914
WP No. 19965 of 2024
C/W WP No. 31751 of 2024
WP No. 32115 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.19965 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.31751 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)
WRIT PETITION NO.32115 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)
WRIT PETITION NO.4623 OF 2025 (LB-BMP)
WRIT PETITION NO.7326 OF 2025 (LB-BMP)
IN WP No.19965/2024:
BETWEEN:
1. CHAMAN BHARTIYA FOUNDATION,
A PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,
REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
INDIAN TRUSTS ACT, 1882,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT NO.E-52, NEW MANGALPURI,
Digitally signed
MANDI ROAD, MEHRAULI, NEW DELHI-110030.
by SACHIN ALSO AT CHAMAN BHARTIYA SCHOOL,
Location: HIGH BHARTIYA CITY, THANISANDRA MAIN ROAD,
COURT OF
BENGALURU-560 064,
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
SMT. ARUNA KUMARI. M. R.
2. M/S BHARTIYA URBAN PVT. LTD.,
FORMERLY KNOWN AS
BHARTIYA CITY DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED
HAVING THEIR REGISTERED OFFICE
AT THANISANDRA MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 064,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:5914
WP No. 19965 of 2024
C/W WP No. 31751 of 2024
WP No. 32115 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE/TRUSTEE
SMT. ARUNA KUMARI. M. R
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SAMMITH S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER,
OFFICE OF CHIEF COMMISSIONER,
HUDSON CIRCLE, N R SQUARE,
BENGALURU-560 002.
2. THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER,
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
YELAHANKA ZONE, AMRUTHAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
BYATARAYANAPURA, BENGALURU-560 092.
3. SRI. NARENDRA BABU C. R.,
S/O LATE. SRI. RAMACHANDRA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT: 44 YEARS,
4. SRI. RAGHAVENDRA C. R. @ R. RAGHU,
S/O LATE. SRI. RAMACHANDRA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT: 42 YEARS,
BOTH R/AT NO.380, 6TH MAIN ROAD,
3RD BLOCK, HBR LAYOUT, BANGALORE NORTH,
KALYANANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 043.
5. SRI. MANJUNATH S/O SRI. RAMACHANDRA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT NO.120/1,
NAGARESHWARA NAGENAHALLI VILLAGE,
DER. SHIVARAM KARANTH NAGAR POST,
BENGALURU-560 077.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.B. MONESH KUMAR, ADV. FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. S. RAJASHEKAR, ADV. FOR R3 TO R5)
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:5914
WP No. 19965 of 2024
C/W WP No. 31751 of 2024
WP No. 32115 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A)
ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF
MANDAMUS TO RESPONDENT NOS.1 & 2 TO ERECT SIGN
BOARDS CLEARLY DECLARING THE SCHEDULE ROAD TO BE A
PUBLIC STREET; B) ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN
THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT
NOS.1 & 2 TO PREVENT ANY BLOCKAGE OR RESTRICTION OF
ACCESS IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE ROAD FROM
RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 5 OR ANYONE ELSE ACTING OR THEIR
BEHALF. C) ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE
NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO RESPONDENT NOS.1 & 2 TO
INITIATE APPROPRIATE ACTIONS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
THE BBMP ACT, 2020 AS AGAINST RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 5
FOR BLOCKING AND CAUSING OBSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC
STREET; AND ETC.
IN WP NO.31751/2024:
BETWEEN:
M/S BHARTIYA URBAN PVT. LTD,
FORMERLY KNOWN AS BHARTIYA CITY DEVELOPERS
PRIVATE LIMTIED,
HAVING THEIR REGISTERED OFFICE
AT THANISANDRA MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 064.
A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT, 1956.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE AND
VICE PRESIDENT LEGAL
SMT. DINKAR HERIKUDRU.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SAMMITH S., ADVOCATE)
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:5914
WP No. 19965 of 2024
C/W WP No. 31751 of 2024
WP No. 32115 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
AND:
1. THE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER,
OFFICE OF CHIEF COMMISSIONER,
HUDSON CIRCLE, N R SQUARE,
BENGALURU-560 002.
2. THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER,
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
YELAHANKA ZONE, AMRUTHAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
BYATARAYANAPURA, BENGALURU-560 092.
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR (TOWN PLANNING-NORTH),
N R SQUARE, NEAR M. S. BUILDING,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 002.
4. SRI. NARENDRA BABU C. R.,
S/O LATE SRI. RAMACHANDRA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
5. SRI. RAGHAVENDRA C.R. @ R. RAGHU,
S/O LATE SRI. RAMACHANDRA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.380,
6TH MAIN ROAD, 3RD BLOCK, HBR LAYOUT,
KALYANANAGAR, BANGALROE NORTH,
BANGALORE-560 043.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.B. MONESH KUMAR, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. S.RAJASHEKAR ADV. FOR R4 AND C/R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
A) ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE
OF CERTIORARI QUASHING AND SETTING ASIDE THE
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:5914
WP No. 19965 of 2024
C/W WP No. 31751 of 2024
WP No. 32115 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
LETTER BEARING NO.BBMP.VA.AA(YA.VA)/P.R/704/2024-
25 DATED 23.09.2024 AS CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE-U,
ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 ADDRESSED TO
RESPONDENT NO.1, IN ORDER TO TAKE REQUISITE
ACTION TO SET ASIDE THE PLAN SANCTIONS/APPROVALS
OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF THE
SCHEDULE PROPERTY ON BASIS OF THE PRIVATE
COMPLAINT LODGED BY RESPONDENT NO.4; B) ISSUE A
WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING AND SETTING ASIDE NOTICE
BEARING NO.JDTP/(U)/PR.T.I/1049/2024-25 DATED
10.10.2024 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 AS CONTAINED
IN ANNEXURE-V, TO PROVIDE AN EXPLANATION
REGARDING THE VIOLATIONS OF SANCTION PLANS AS
ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT OF THE RESPONDENT NO.4;
C) ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE
OF MANDAMUS TO RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 TO
CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS AND REPLIES OF THE
PETITIONER AS CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE-W AND
INITIATE APPROPRIATE ACTIONS AS PER PROVISIONS OF
THE BBMP ACT, 2020; AND ETC.
IN WP NO.32115/2024:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. A LUKAS S/O ANTHONAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
RESIDING AT #120, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
NEAR ARMY COLLEGE,
N.NAGENAHALLI COLONY,
KOTHANUR, BANGALORE - 560 077.
2. SRI. MOHAN R. S/O RAJAGOWDAR,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
RESIDING AT #39,
KANNUR BAGALUR MAIN ROAD,
KANNUR, BANGALORE - 562 149.
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:5914
WP No. 19965 of 2024
C/W WP No. 31751 of 2024
WP No. 32115 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
3. SRI. WASEEM S. S/O R. MOHAMMED SALEEM,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
RESIDING AT #106,
NAGARESHWARA NAGENAHALLI,
NEAR ARMY COLLEGE,
KOTHANUR, BANGALORE - 560 077.
4. SMT. SOUMYA W/O SRINIVAS GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NEAR KMT,
KANNUR, BANGALORE - 562 149.
5. KUM. INDHU M. D/O MOHAN R.
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
RESIDING AT #39,
KANNUR, BANGALORE - 562 149.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MAHESH Y.L., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER,
OFFICE OF CHIEF COMMISSIONER,
HUDSON CIRCLE, N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU - 560 002.
2. THE ZONAL COMMISSONER,
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
YELAHANKA ZONE,
AMRUTHAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
BYATARAYANAPURA,
BENGALURU - 560 092.
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:5914
WP No. 19965 of 2024
C/W WP No. 31751 of 2024
WP No. 32115 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
3. SRI. RAGAVENDRA C.R,
S/O LATE RAMACHANDRA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
4. SRI. NARENDRA BABU C.R,
S/O LATE RAMACHANDRA REDDY,
AGED MAJOR,
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.360,
6TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, HSR LAYOUT,
BENGALURU - 560 043.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.B. MONESH KUMAR ADV. FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. S. RAJASHEKAR ADV. FOR R3 & R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A)
ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF
MANDAMUS TO RESPONDENT NOS.1 & 2 TO REPAIR AND
MAINTAIN THE SCHEDULE ROAD; B) ISSUE A WRIT,
ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS,
DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 & 2 TO PREVENT ANY
UNAUTHORIZED DIGGING OR BLOCKAGE OF THE
SCHEDULE ROAD; AND ETC.
IN WP NO.4623/2025:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. RAGAVENDRA C.R,
S/O LATE RAMACHANDRA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
2. SRI. NARENDRA BABU C.R.
S/O LATE RAMACHANDRA REDDY,
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:5914
WP No. 19965 of 2024
C/W WP No. 31751 of 2024
WP No. 32115 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.360, 6TH MAIN,
3RD BLOCK, HBR LAYOUT,
BENGALURU NORTH,
BENGALURU-560 043.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
M.S.BUILDING, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
KUMARA PARK WEST, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 012.
3. THE COMMISSIONER,
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R. SQUARE, HUDSON CIRCLE,
BENGALURU - 560 002.
4. THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER,
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
YELAHANKA ZONE, BYATRAYANAPURA,
BENGALURU-560 092.
5. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
(TOWN PLANNING - NORTH),
B.B.M.P HEAD OFFICE, N.R. SQUARE,
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:5914
WP No. 19965 of 2024
C/W WP No. 31751 of 2024
WP No. 32115 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
HUDSON CIRCLE,
BENGALURU-560 002.
6. M/S. BHARATIYA URBAN PVT. LTD,
FORMERLY KNOWN AS
BHARATIYA CITY DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,
THANISANDRA MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
SMT. ARUNA KUMARI M.R.
REGD. UNDER COMPANY ACT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BOPANNA BELLLIYAPPA, AGA FOR R1,
SRI. KRISHNA ADV. FOR R2,
SRI. K.B. MONESH KUMAR ADV. FOR R3 TO R5,
SRI. SUMMITH, ADV. FOR C/R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A)
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE LETTER
DATED 15.01.2025 BEARING NO.JDTP(U)/PR/1049/2024-
25 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
IN WP NO.7326/2025:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. RAGAVENDRA. C. R.
S/O LATE RAMACHANDRA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
2. SRI. NARENDRA BABU C. R.
S/O LATE RAMACHANDRA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5914
WP No. 19965 of 2024
C/W WP No. 31751 of 2024
WP No. 32115 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.360, 6TH MAIN,
3RD BLOCK, HBR LAYOUT,
BENGALURU NORTH,
BENGALURU-560 043.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
M.S.BUILDING, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001,
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
KUMARA PARK WEST, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 012.
3. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER,
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R. SQUARE, HUDSON CIRCLE,
BENGALURU-560 002.
4. THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER,
BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
YELAHANKA ZONE, BYATRAYANAPURA,
BENGALURU-560 092.
5. THE JOINT DIRECTOR (TOWN PLANNING-NORTH),
B.B.M.P HEAD OFFICE, N.R. SQUARE,
HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 002.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5914
WP No. 19965 of 2024
C/W WP No. 31751 of 2024
WP No. 32115 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
6. M/S. GRIB AWAAS BUILDING LLP
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT #5-5/213,
2ND FLOOR, ROAD NO.7,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
RAJALINGAM COLONY,
PHASE 1, BODUPPAL,
MEDIPALLY, MEDCHAL,
MALKAJGARI-500 039.
REG. UNDER COMPANY'S ACT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BOPANNA BELLIYAPPA, AGA FOR R1,
SRI. B.S. KARTHIKEYAN, ADV. FOR R3 TO R5,
SRI. K.N. SUBBAREDDY, ADV. FOR R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO 1)
ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF
MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 5 TO
CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 24.01.2025,
07.02.2025 AND 27.02.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONERS AND THEREBY REQUESTED THEM NOT TO
ACCORD ANY PERMISSION OR LICENCE IN FAVOUR OF 6TH
RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURES-A TO C AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR DICTATING
ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5914
WP No. 19965 of 2024
C/W WP No. 31751 of 2024
WP No. 32115 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
ORAL ORDER
W.P.No.19965/2024 is filed for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondent Nos.1 and 2 to erect signboards, clearly declaring the schedule road to be a public street; a writ in the nature of mandamus is also sought to direct respondent Nos.1 and 2 to prevent any blockage or restriction of access over the schedule road from respondent Nos.3 to 5 or anyone else acting on their behalf; and writ in the nature of mandamus is also sought directing respondent Nos.1 and 2 to initiate appropriate action under the provisions of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 (henceforth referred to as 'the BBMP Act, 2020' for short) as against respondent Nos.3 to 5 for blocking and causing obstruction of public street.
2. W.P.No.31751/2024 is filed seeking a writ of certiorari to quash a letter bearing No.©©JA¦.ªÀ.D(AiÀÄ.ªÀ)/¦.Dgï/704/2024-25 dated 23.09.2024
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5914
WP No. 19965 of 2024
C/W WP No. 31751 of 2024
WP No. 32115 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
issued by respondent No.2 to take action to set aside the plan sanctioned/approval obtained by the petitioner in respect of the property bearing Khata Nos.6/1 and 6/2 of Chokkanahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru; a writ in the nature of certiorari is also sought for to quash and set aside the notice bearing No.eÉrn¦/(G)/¦Dgï.n.L/1049/2024-25 dated 10.10.2024 issued by respondent No.3 to show cause regarding the violation of the sanction plan as alleged in the complaint filed by respondent No.4; likewise a writ in the nature of mandamus is also sought for to direct respondent Nos.1 to 3 to consider the representations and the reply of the petitioner and initiate appropriate action as provided under the provisions of the BBMP Act, 2020.
3. W.P.No.32115/2024 is filed seeking for writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondent Nos.1 and 2 to repair and maintain the road and to prevent any unauthorized digging or blocking the road.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5914
WP No. 19965 of 2024
C/W WP No. 31751 of 2024
WP No. 32115 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
4. W.P.No.4623/2025 is filed seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the letter dated 15.01.2025 bearing Nos.JDTP(U)/PR/1049/2024-25 issued by respondent No.5 to petitioner No.1.
5. W.P.No.7326/2025 is filed seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondent Nos.2 to 5 to consider the representations dated 24.01.2025, 07.02.2025 and 27.02.2025 and not to accord any permission or license in favour of respondent No.6.
6. All these writ petitions are concerning what is presently a double road measuring 24.60 meters wide and 480 meters long in Sy.No.30 which runs upto Sy.No.50 of Chokkanahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru linking Thanisandra Main Road to Nagareshwara Nagenahalli Main Road via Bhartiya City and bounded on the east by Bhartiya City Township, west by Thanisandra Main Road, north by Manipal Academy, Brindavan Apartments and other private properties and south by Diana Hostel and Prisha Orchids Apartments and
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5914
WP No. 19965 of 2024
C/W WP No. 31751 of 2024
WP No. 32115 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
other private properties. Therefore, any reference
henceforth to a "double road" shall mean the road in question.
7. The petitioners in W.P.No.19965/2024 contend that petitioner No.1 is an educational trust, while petitioner No.2 is a developer having developed a township named Bhartiya City Township, comprising of 4,000 flats, commercial office space, hotels, mall, recreation centre etc., in an area spread over 125 acres. The double road acts as a thoroughfare between Thanisandra main road and Nagareshwara-Nagenahalli main road and is used by thousands of commuters and pedestrians on a daily basis. They contend that the owners of land in Sy.Nos.30, 33, 35, 36, 38 and 40 of Chokkanahalli Village had executed a gift deed dated 21.03.2003 in favour of the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District on the request of the villagers of Chokkanahalli, Nagareshwara-Nagenahalli and Byrathibande Village and thereby relinquished portions of
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5914
WP No. 19965 of 2024
C/W WP No. 31751 of 2024
WP No. 32115 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
their land. They also declared in the gift deed that the area relinquished by them is for the purpose of a road from Bellahalli main road to Nagareshwara-Nagenahalli main road.
8. The petitioners contend that the existence of the double road can be seen from the layout plan of Venkatadri Estate approved in the year 2003. They further contend that respondent Nos.3 and 4 along with their father had entered into an agreement of sale in favour of one Sri Rangaswamy in respect of the property bearing Sy.No.32/1 of Chokkanahalli village. In the said agreement of sale, he had promised to procure a right of way to the property so agreed to be sold from the nearest public road and particularly from the owners of Sy.Nos.30, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41 and 44 on or before the execution of the sale deed. Thereafter they executed a sale deed dated 02.08.2006 in favour of one Shanti Devi Kad, who was the erstwhile partner of petitioner No.2. It is contended that in the sale deed, it is clearly mentioned
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5914
WP No. 19965 of 2024
C/W WP No. 31751 of 2024
WP No. 32115 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
that the property sold is conveyed with all easements. They contend that respondent No.4 himself had addressed a letter to the BBMP regarding the width of the road passing through Sy.No.30 of Chokkanahalli and that the BBMP vide letter dated 13.08.2018 had affirmed that the road passing through Sy.No.30 of Chokkanahalli Village to Sy.No.50 is a public road and is 24.60 meters wide. They contend that in the year 2020, a lease deed was executed by respondent Nos.3 and 4 in favour of petitioner No.2, leasing out 7740 sq.ft. in Sy.No.30 of Chokkanahalli Village. In the said lease deed also, the double road was clearly shown as the access road. They also contend that respondent Nos.3 and 4 have constructed a commercial building and have leased out vacant land parcels to several petty shops on either side of the double road. Despite the above, respondent Nos.3 and 4 had vandalized the double road and caused impediments in one way or the other. They lodged a complaint before the BBMP and claimed that the road passing through Sy.No.30 was thin
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5914
WP No. 19965 of 2024
C/W WP No. 31751 of 2024
WP No. 32115 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
private road and that the petitioner No.2 had obtained sanction of a building plan by showing the double road as the access road. Based on the said complaint, the Joint Director of Town Planning North issued a show cause notice to petitioner No.2 on 21.08.2023 to show cause why the building plans granted to it should not be revoked. Petitioner No.2 gave a detailed reply on 15.09.2023 and 22.09.2023. However, no action was taken by the BBMP. Thereafter, on 20.09.2023, BBMP issued one more confirmation letter to petitioner No.2 stating that the road passing from Sy.No.30 of Chokkanahalli Village to Sy.No.50 is a public road and measured 24.60 meters wide. On 21.07.2024 respondent Nos.3 and 4 in collusion with some antisocial elements i.e., respondent No.5, damaged the existing road at the entry point and blocked the same using stone fencing and barricades. The villagers aggrieved by the same immediately removed the barricades and fencing on the same night and the next morning in the presence of the
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5914
WP No. 19965 of 2024
C/W WP No. 31751 of 2024
WP No. 32115 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
jurisdictional police and the Joint Commissioner of BBMP. The petitioners also lodged complaints with both the police as well as the respondent - BBMP. However, no action was taken by the BBMP, other than the Joint Commissioner visiting the spot. The petitioners contend that the double road has been in continuous use for more than 20 years and even the village maps clearly established that a cart track runs through Sy.No.30 and even the revised master plan 2015 indicated the presence of a peripheral ring road and a double road passing through Sy.No.30 of Chokkanahalli Village. They contend that the Google maps from the year 2012 till present date demonstrate the existence of the double road. The petitioners claim that since respondent Nos.3 and 4 had vandalized the road and had blocked it, they are before this Court seeking the reliefs mentioned above.
9. When this writ petition was listed on 26.07.2024, the respondent No.2/Zonal Commissioner, BBMP, Yelahanka Zone was directed to inspect the spot
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5914
WP No. 19965 of 2024
C/W WP No. 31751 of 2024
WP No. 32115 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
forthwith and ensure that the public road is restored so that the same becomes usable by the general public. A report dated 06.08.2024 was filed on 28.08.2024, wherein it is stated as follows:
"As per the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.19965/2024 dated 26.07.2024, spot inspection was conducted on 03.08.2024 along with Joint Commissioner, Chief Engineer, Executive Engineer, Assistant Executive Engineer of Yelahanka Zone and Executive Engineer of Road Infrastructure Division of Yelahanka Zone.
The said road falls in Sy.No.30 of Chokkanahalli. The Village Map of Chokkanahalli village is enclosed herewith as Annexure-A. As per RTC, in Sy.No.30 the property to an extent of 02 acre 18 guntas stands in the joint names of Narendrababu and Raghavendra, sons of late Ramachandra Reddy. The RTC is enclosed as Annexure- B. On inspection of the spot, it is observed that there exists a private road as per the sketch enclosed in Annexure-C. The land owners have not relinquished the land to the BBMP. It is reported by the Executive Engineer that the BBMP has neither formed nor maintaining the said road in Sy.No.30."
10. In the meanwhile, the owners of Sy.No.30 had submitted a representation dated 25.07.2024 stating that the petitioners in W.P.No.19965/2024 had fraudulently
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5914
WP No. 19965 of 2024
C/W WP No. 31751 of 2024
WP No. 32115 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
obtained a sanction of a building plan by showing the double road as the access to their property and therefore requested action to be initiated for cancellation of the plan sanctioned. Following this, the Zonal Commissioner of BBMP issued a notice dated 23.09.2024 to the petitioner No.2 in W.P.No.19965/2024. Later, the Joint Commissioner addressed a letter dated 10.10.2024 to the petitioner No.2 calling upon it to show cause, why the sanction plan, commencement certificate and occupancy certificate should not be cancelled. Petitioner No.2 submitted its reply on 18/22.10.2024 and has thereafter filed W.P.No.31751/2024 challenging the notices issued by the Zonal Commissioner as well as the Joint Commissioner mentioned above.
11. A few residents of Nagareshwara, Nagenahallli, Kothanur and Kannur villages have filed W.P.No.32115/2024 contending that they have been using the double road for more than 25 years and that the road was initially not paved and asphalted. However after
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5914
WP No. 19965 of 2024
C/W WP No. 31751 of 2024
WP No. 32115 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
several developments came up in the area, the double road has become an important access and in the year 2005 it was paved and asphalted. They contend that they came to know that a reputed builder undertook landscaping work on the side of the public street and upgraded its outlook. They contend that this road is catering to the needs of the general public and approximately 40-50,000 people commute on the said road daily. They contend that the owners of Sy.No.30 of Chokkanahalli Village had erected boards claiming that the double road is a private road belonging to them. In July 2024, some unknown persons dug-up the road and erected barbed wire fence over the entrance from the Thanisandra Main road. Upon intervention of the elders of the village, the public street was reopened for use. They claim that the owners of Sy.No.30 have installed boards claiming that the road is a private street and requested the general public not to use it. The petitioners have therefore sought for a direction to the respondent Nos.1
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5914
WP No. 19965 of 2024
C/W WP No. 31751 of 2024
WP No. 32115 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
and 2 to repair and maintain the road and to prevent any unauthorised digging or blockage of the said road.
12. Following the above developments, the Joint Commissioner of BBMP, after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner No.2 in W.P.No.19965/2024, passed an order dated 15.01.2025 stating that in the light of pendency of W.P.Nos.19965/2024 and 32115/2024 and the definition of a 'public street' under Section 2(57) of the BBMP Act, 2020, based upon which the BDA had sanctioned layout plans and the revenue authorities had converted the land for non-agricultural residential use and in light of the report of the Assistant Executive Engineer, Byatarayanapura dated 20.09.2023, further action would be initiated after final disposal of the aforesaid writ petitions. The owners of Sy.No.30 of Chokkanahalli being aggrieved by the said order have filed W.P.No.4623/2025.
13. It appears that a developer named M/s Grib Awaas Builders LLP sought for the sanction of a building plan developed property bearing BBMP Khata No.1/33/2/5,
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5914
WP No. 19965 of 2024
C/W WP No. 31751 of 2024
WP No. 32115 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
e-aasti Khata No.1/33/2/5 of Sy.Nos.33/2 and 36/2 of Chokkanahalli by showing the double road as the access road. The owners of Sy.No.30 therefore filed representations dated 24.01.2025 and 27.02.2025 to the Bangalore Development Authority, the Chief Commissioner of BBMP and the Town Plan Member of BBMP. The owners of Sy.No.30 are therefore before this Court in W.P.No.7326/2025 seeking for a direction to the authorities mentioned above to consider their representations.
14. (i) A statement of objections is filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in W.P.No.19965/2024 inter alia contending "on inspection of the spot in question, it is observed that there exists a private road, as per the sketch enclosed."
(ii) Upon inspection, it is further established that the BBMP have neither formed the road nor are maintaining the said road. Hence, the question of forming maintaining or removing the encroachment over a private
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5914
WP No. 19965 of 2024
C/W WP No. 31751 of 2024
WP No. 32115 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
property does not arise. Thus, it is contended that the present petition is in the guise of furtherance of a private interest of the petitioners and not to challenge any action/inaction of a statutory body.
(iii) It is categorically contended that, "there is no road as is sought to be contended by the petitioners and the report of the authority establishes the fact. In fact, this petition is filed to declare a non existing road to be a public road and to put the private respondents to prejudice. The schedule road is an imaginary road and a private road not formed by any authority as on date. A convenience pathway inside the private property cannot take the place of a public road at all. The averments of the writ petition are imaginary and created for the purpose of filing the petition. From the documents relied upon, it can be gathered that they are created to aid the petitioners in filing the petition. If the petitioners were genuinely aggrieved, then the only remedy is before the competent Civil Court and not in the nature of a writ petition. Various
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5914
WP No. 19965 of 2024
C/W WP No. 31751 of 2024
WP No. 32115 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
deeds are produced and relied upon and it is not possible in view of the claims and counter claims to render a decision as to whether it is a public street or a private street. That there is a well-entrenched civil litigation regarding the double road and the same has to be settled before the Civil Court and a State Authority cannot take side when disputed question of fact exists."
15. (i) A rejoinder is filed to this statement of objections contending that no notice was issued to the petitioners nor was an inspection conducted in their presence. It is reiterated that the double road has been in existence for more than 20 years and the village maps demonstrate the existence of a cart track in Sy.No.30 and the revised master plan also bears testimony to the said fact.
(ii) It is contended that abutting the double road, several buildings have come up after obtaining approvals from the BBMP and the plan so sanctioned by BBMP established the existence of the double road. Likewise the
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5914
WP No. 19965 of 2024
C/W WP No. 31751 of 2024
WP No. 32115 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
owners of Sy.No.30 have constructed buildings and leased the vacant space abutting the double road.
(iii) It is alleged that the respondent No.1 and 2 are clearly hand in glove with the owners of Sy.No.30. That there is no disputed question of fact involved in the writ petition and a declaration has to be made by the respondent No.1 in terms of Section 2(57) of the BBMP Act, 2020 and declare the double road as a public street.
16. (i) The respondent Nos.3 and 4 have also filed a statement of objections denying the execution of a gift deed 21.03.2003 by their predecessor in favour of the Deputy Commissioner. They deny the existence of double road and they deny that it was used by the general public.
(ii) On the contrary, the Assistant Director of Land Records of Yelahanka had conducted a survey and prepared a sketch, where there was no mention about the existence of the double road in Sy.No.30 other than a cart
- 28 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5914
WP No. 19965 of 2024
C/W WP No. 31751 of 2024
WP No. 32115 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
track. It is therefore contended that 80 feet road did not exist in any of the survey maps.
(iii) It is alleged that after issuing a show cause notice to the petitioners in W.P.No.19965/2024, the BBMP has not taken any action yielding to political pressure and extraneous consideration. They have contended that they addressed a letter dated 21.08.2023 to the BBMP contending that there is no access or approach road in their property in Sy.No.30. Though, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioners, but no action is taken till date.
(iv) As regards the contention that a confirmation letter dated 20.09.2023 was issued by the BBMP acknowledging the existence of the double road, it is claimed that it is incorrect as it is contrary to factual aspects of the case and documentary evidence. It is contended that on one hand the Assistant Director of Land Records had issued a sketch stating that there is no public road in Sy.No.30, but a cart road runs in the property.
- 29 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5914
WP No. 19965 of 2024
C/W WP No. 31751 of 2024
WP No. 32115 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
Therefore, it is contended that the document at
Annexure-K issued by BBMP is nothing but a collusive document and is issued without any basis. It is claimed that in the absence of any document to show that BBMP has formed a public road in Sy.No.30 and they have acquired the said property for the purpose of formation of a public road, they contend that the certificate issued by BBMP has no sanctity in the eye of law. It is further contended that a portion of the property bearing Sy.No.30 measuring 649.68 square meters was acquired by BBMP for the purpose of widening Thanisandra to Bellahalli Main road. The BBMP had issued a development rights certificate in favour of respondent Nos.3 and 4 and not for the purposes of the road in question. It is also contended that after acquisition of the property belonging to the respondent Nos.3 and 4 for better utilization and usage of the remaining portion of the property, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 have formed an approach road to their property. Since the property bearing Sy.No.30 is a private
- 30 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5914
WP No. 19965 of 2024
C/W WP No. 31751 of 2024
WP No. 32115 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
property and the respondent Nos.3 and 4 have formed a cart road in the said property to have proper access to their property, the petitioners are trying to mislead the Court by contending that the said private road is a public road. It is also contended that adjacent to the property bearing Sy.No.30, the property bearing Sy.No.32/1 is situate and belongs to the respondent Nos.3 and 4. In order to have proper access and approach road to both the properties and since respondent Nos.3 and 4 established a hollow block manufacturing unit in property bearing Sy.No.32 they in order to provide access to their customers and for proper ingress and egress to the manufacturing unit, they formed a road in their private property which cannot be considered as a public road. They contend that in spite of knowing it; the BBMP had issued the certificate stating that it is a public road without any basis and documentary proof. They contend that there is no dispute with regard to the existence of a cart road in Sy.No.30. However, the contention that the revised
- 31 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5914
WP No. 19965 of 2024
C/W WP No. 31751 of 2024
WP No. 32115 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
master plan of 2015 indicates the presence of a peripheral ring road and a double road passing through Sy.No.30 is not correct. As a matter of fact, they claim that the petitioners have obtained the conversion order from the competent authority by showing the peripheral ring road and not by showing the double road in Sy.No.30. The road shown from Thanisandra main road is the existing 24.3 meters wide road which has not been properly mentioned in the plan obtained by the petitioners before developing the township. They also contend that BBMP has not acquired the property bearing Sy.No.30 for the purposes of formation of public road and BBMP has issued an endorsement that they are not connected to the property bearing Sy.No.30 except the acquired portion as stated supra for the purposes of widening the Thanisandra and Bellahalli road. They also contend that they have asphalted the approach road formed by them in their own property. The petitioners contend that the provisions of the BBMP Act, 2020 is inapplicable to the road in question
- 32 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5914
WP No. 19965 of 2024
C/W WP No. 31751 of 2024
WP No. 32115 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
as it is not formed by the BBMP, but it is a private road. With these contentions, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 contend that there can be no direction to the respondents as sought for by the petitioners.
17. The learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. Nos.19965/2024, 31751/2024 and 32115/2024 contend that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 are privy to various documents which shows that the double road is in existence. He contends that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 have themselves leased a property to the petitioners and the lease deed shows the existence of the double road. He also contends that the predecessors of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 have executed a gift deed and thereby relinquishing that portion of the land for the purposes of formation of a road from Bellahalli through Chokkanahalli upto Nagareshwara Nagenahalli main road. He therefore contends that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 cannot now deny the fact of relinquishment of the portion of this land and also cannot claim that it is a private road. He further
- 33 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5914
WP No. 19965 of 2024
C/W WP No. 31751 of 2024
WP No. 32115 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
contends that the road in question has all the
characteristics of a public street as all the residents of the area have been using this road for well over 20 years. He invited the attention of the Court to Section 2(57) of the BBMP Act to contend that if it is allowed to be used for more than 15 years then the road is deemed to be a public street. He thus contends that the road in question has to be declared as a public street and suitable direction should be issued to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to preserve the road. He contends that right of passage over such public street is a vested right in favour of all citizens and no person can stop or block or lay any obstacles on the public street. In this regard, he relied upon the following judgments:
i) Basalingappa Parappa & Ors. Vs. Dharmappa Basappa and Ors. reported in (1910) ILR 34 Bom. 571;
ii) Saghir Ahmad Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. reported in (1954) 2 SCC 399;
- 34 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5914
WP No. 19965 of 2024
C/W WP No. 31751 of 2024
WP No. 32115 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
iii) Sujay Advertising Vs. Union of India & Ors.
reported in 1979 SCC OnLine Kar 171;
iv) M/s. Gobind Pershad Jagdish Pershad Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee reported in (1993) 4 SCC 69; and
v) Dr. Nitin G. Khot & Ors. Vs. Station Commandant Belgaum reported in ILR 1998 KAR 2194.
18. He contends that the BBMP being the authority bound to manage these public streets, cannot turn around at the instance of the private respondents to contend that it is a private street. He submits that the BBMP is bound to maintain the road as it is a public street falling within the definition of Section 2(57) of the BBMP Act, 2020.
19. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that the road in question is not a public street as it is a private street formed by the owners of Sy.No.30. He contends that the road in question is not vested in the BBMP and it is not formed or maintained or
- 35 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5914
WP No. 19965 of 2024
C/W WP No. 31751 of 2024
WP No. 32115 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
managed by the BBMP in any manner whatsoever. He therefore submits that this is a private dispute between the petitioners as well as the owners of Sy.No.30 which has to be resolved before the Civil Court and this Court should not issue any directions to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to maintain the road. He also contends that BBMP is not paying any electricity charges in respect of the street lights installed in the said road and it has not deputed any persons to clean the road.
20. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 4 reiterated the assertions in their statement of objections and submitted that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 are also the owners of Sy.No.32/1 where they have established a hollow cement brick manufacturing unit and that they have used a portion of their land as a private road to reach their property in Sy.No.32/1 from Thanisandra main road. He contends that the respondents have never relinquished any portion of their land to be used for public purposes and the road in question is not a
- 36 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5914
WP No. 19965 of 2024
C/W WP No. 31751 of 2024
WP No. 32115 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
public road, but is a private road. He therefore contends that no direction can be issued to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to take over the road or maintain or manage the said road. He further contends that petitioners in W.P.Nos.19965/2024 and 31751/2024 did not mention in their conversion orders or in the plan sanctioned that the double road is the access to their property from Thanisandra main road. On the contrary, he contends that they claimed that the access to their property is from the peripheral ring road. He thus contends that the petitioners cannot now claim that they have access through the private street of the respondent Nos.3 and 4. He further contends that now steps are taken to acquire portion of Sy.No.30 of Chokkanahalli belonging to the respondent Nos.3 and 4 and this is not in any way concerned with the double road in Sy.No.30. He therefore contends that the petitioners are trying to mislead this Court to claim that the State Government has already proposed to acquire the land in Sy.No.30.
- 37 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5914
WP No. 19965 of 2024
C/W WP No. 31751 of 2024
WP No. 32115 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
21. I have considered the above submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondents. I have also perused the humongous material placed on record by both the parties.
22. Facts that are not in dispute are that (a) the double road is in existence, (b) that it connects Thanisandra main road on the west and Nagareshwara Nagenahalli on the east, (c) that it is 80 feet wide road and 480 meters long, (d) that alongside this double road several residential/commercial constructions are put up including the building constructed by respondent Nos.3 and 4, (e) that 'B' kharab land of 0-19 guntas is available in Sy.No.30 of Chokkanahalli and a cart track runs through this land, (f) that the double road is paved and asphalted and a side walk is provided, (g) that a median is laid separating the two lanes on either side, (h) that drains are laid on either side of the double road, (i) that lane markings are made on the road, (j) that an electric cable runs beneath the double road, (k) that there are street
- 38 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5914
WP No. 19965 of 2024
C/W WP No. 31751 of 2024
WP No. 32115 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
lights installed, (l) that a traffic signal is installed at the western end where it merges into the Thanisandra main road, (m) revised master plan (RMP) 2015.
23. The disputed questions are that (a) the father of respondent Nos.3 and 4 have not executed the gift deed dated 21.03.2003 in favour of Deputy Commissioner allowing formation of a road in Sy.No.30 of Chokkanahalli,
(b) that the double road formed in Sy.No.30 is a private street formed by the owners of Sy.No.30 to reach Sy.No.32 where the respondent Nos.3 and 4 have established a cement brick manufacturing unit, (c) that the petitioners in W.P.No.19965/2024 have claimed access to their property through the peripheral ring road and not the double road, which is evident from the orders of Deputy Commissioner dated 30.11.2007 based upon which the Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA) had sanctioned a plan which shows that access to their property is from the peripheral ring road which is yet to be formed, (d) whether the kharab of 0-19 guntas in
- 39 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5914
WP No. 19965 of 2024
C/W WP No. 31751 of 2024
WP No. 32115 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
Sy.No.30 is not towards the double road but for a cart track that runs from Chokkanahalli to Bellahalli as per the village map.
24. The facts that accentuate the dispute are (a) that BBMP claims that it has not formed or maintained the double road and is not mentioned in its records, b) this road is not vested in BBMP, (c) that it is not paying the electric bills in respect of street lights installed in the road,
(d) that it has claimed that the double road is a private road, (e) it is not known who is paying the electricity bills and who has engaged people to keep the double road clean, (f) it is not known who laid the double road and who is maintaining it, (f) this road is not found in the village map of Chokkanahalli, but is found in the RMP 2015, (g) that there is nothing to show that the State Government or the BBMP has acquired land for formation of the double road.
25. It is no doubt true that a 'Public Street' under Section 2(57) of BBMP Act, 2020 is defined as under :-
- 40 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5914
WP No. 19965 of 2024
C/W WP No. 31751 of 2024
WP No. 32115 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
"Section 2(57) "Street" - means a public street or a private street, and includes any highway and any causeway, bridge, road, lane, foot-way, subway or riding path or passage over which the public have a right of passage or access or have passed and had access uninterruptedly for a period of twenty years; and, when there is a foot-way as well as a carriage way in any street, the said term includes both".
(Underlining by Court) However, in view of the stand taken by the BBMP itself, it is difficult for this Court to give an affirmative finding that the double road is a public street. This is therefore a pure question of fact which can be tried and adjudicated by a civil Court. Though several judgments are relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the fact remains that BBMP claims that the double road is a private street and therefore, the reliefs sought for by the petitioners cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition, that too, to resolve a dispute between private individuals over a private civil right. However, in order to balance the interest of all concerned, it is appropriate to maintain
- 41 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5914
WP No. 19965 of 2024
C/W WP No. 31751 of 2024
WP No. 32115 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
status-quo of the double road as it stands today, as it is purportedly serving the needs of many including the respondent Nos.3 and 4, till either of the parties approach the civil Court to establish their claim.
26. In that view of the matter, the following order is passed :
i) W.P.Nos.19965/2024 and 32115/2024 are disposed off directing the petitioners and the respondents therein to maintain status-quo of the road as it exists today and no one shall vandalize or damage or lay any obstruction on the double road for a period of six months.
ii) The petitioners/respondents No.3 and 4 W.P.No.19965/2024 may approach the civil Court for declaration of their right or interest over the double road. They may also request the civil Court for any interim order to continue the order of status-quo granted by this Court, in which event
- 42 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5914 WP No. 19965 of 2024 C/W WP No. 31751 of 2024 WP No. 32115 of 2024 HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS the civil Court shall independently decide it uninfluenced by any observations made herein.
iii) W.P.No.31751/2024 is allowed in part and the impugned notice bearing No.eÉrn¦/(G)/ ¦Dgï.n.L/1049/2024-25 dated 10.10.2024 at Annexure-V to the writ petition issued by respondent No.1/BBMP and impugned communication bearing No.©©JA¦.ªÀ.D(AiÀÄ.ªÀ)/ ¦.Dgï/704/2024-25 dated 23.09.2024 at Annexure-U to the writ petition is quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to take necessary steps if they succeed in the civil suit.
iv) W.P.No.4623/2025 is allowed in part. The communication dated 15.01.2025 bearing No.JDTP(U)/PR/1049/2024-25 addressed by respondent No.5/Joint Director, BBMP at Annexure-A to the writ petition shall be subject to the out come of any civil suit that may be filed.
- 43 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5914
WP No. 19965 of 2024
C/W WP No. 31751 of 2024
WP No. 32115 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
v) W.P.No.7326/2025 is allowed in part and the
respondents are directed to consider the
representations dated 24.01.2025, 07.02.2025
and 27.02.2025 of the petitioners after
adjudication by the civil Court.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ)
JUDGE
sn
List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1