Karnataka High Court
Sri. Rajendra. K vs The Commissioner on 15 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:26218
WP No. 8450 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 8450 OF 2025 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. RAJENDRA. K,
S/O SRI. DEEKAYA POOJARY,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.1/49/2, PUSHPA KUTEERA,
KAKKE PADAVU, VTC ULI, POST OFFICE ULI,
DAKSHINA KANNADA -DISTRICT-574326
AND ALSO AT FLAT NO. S-5, 2ND FLOOR,
PSR ARCADE, GUDDHADAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
HEBBAL, BENGALURU.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. G KRISHNA MURTHY, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI.GURU
PRASAD A.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER,
Digitally signed by
NAGARAJA B M BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
Location: HIGH N R SQUARE, BENGALURU-560002
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER,
WARD NO.14, DASARAHALLI SUB DIVISION,
BAGALAKUNTE, BENGALURU NORTH,
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
BENGALURU-560057
3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
WARD NO.14, DASARAHALLI SUB DIVISION,
BAGALAKUNTE, BENGALURU NORTH,
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:26218
WP No. 8450 of 2025
HC-KAR
BENGALURU-560057
4. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR URBAN PLANNING,
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
(NORTH), WARD NO.14, DASARAHALLI SUB
DIVISION, BAGALAKUNTE, BENGALURU NORTH,
BRUHAT BENGALURU KV MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
BENGALURU ZONE, BENGALURU-560057
5. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001
6. SMT. SOWRAVI. V.S,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
W/O SRI. DHANANJAYA,
R/A NO.518, GROUND FLOOR,
HESARAGHATTA MAIN ROAD, RAMAIAH ENCLAVE,
NAGASANDRA, BENGALURU-560073
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4,
SRI.H.K.KENCHEGOWDA, AGA FOR R5 AND
SRI.D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI.SRINIVASA T
GOWDA FOR R6)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1
TO 3 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE
PETITIONER DTD. 18.02.2025 AT ANNX-A AND ETC
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:26218
WP No. 8450 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
The captioned petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
"WHEREFORE, the petitioner herein most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to A) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ or Directions, by Directing the Respondent No.1 to 3 to consider the representation of the Petitioner dated 18/02/2025 at Annexure-A. B) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction and direct to the Respondent No.1 to 3 to remove the illegal construction put up by the Respondent No.6.
C) Grant the cost of this Petition to the Petitioner.
D) Grant such other relief's as this Hon'ble court may deems fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. "
2. The petitioner, claiming to be the absolute owner of Site No.11 formed in Sy.No.46/1, which is admittedly part of an unapproved layout, is aggrieved by the alleged unauthorized construction undertaken by private respondent No.6 in the adjacent unapproved layout formed in Sy.No.50/2. While the petitioner's site falls within Sy.No.46/1, respondent No.6 is stated to be the -4- NC: 2025:KHC:26218 WP No. 8450 of 2025 HC-KAR owner of Site No.E5 formed in Sy.No.50/2, which is also an unapproved layout and has not been converted for non- agricultural use.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the averments made in the writ petition and drawing the Court's attention to the photographs placed on record, contends that private respondent No.6 is carrying out illegal construction of a residential structure by encroaching upon the east-west road formed within Sy.No.50/2. It is submitted that such encroachment has effectively blocked the petitioner's access, which was hitherto available through the said east-west road. On this ground, learned Senior Counsel urges this Court to issue necessary directions to respondents No.1 to 4 to initiate appropriate action against respondent No.6 for encroachment and unauthorized construction.
4. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.6, while relying on the objections filed and -5- NC: 2025:KHC:26218 WP No. 8450 of 2025 HC-KAR additional documents produced on 15.07.2025, submits that the petitioner's site falls within Sy.No.46/1, whereas the site owned by respondent No.6 is situated in Sy.No.50/2. Referring to the sketch produced at Document No.7, learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner has access from the western side of Site No.11 through the internal roads formed in the petitioner's own layout. It is further argued that both layouts are admittedly unapproved and, therefore, the petitioner has no enforceable legal right to claim access through a road formed in a separate unapproved layout. On this premise, it is contended that the writ petition is not maintainable and no relief can be granted under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
5. This Court has heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.6, the learned standing counsel for the BBMP, and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. The limited question that arises for -6- NC: 2025:KHC:26218 WP No. 8450 of 2025 HC-KAR consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus against respondent No.6 or the statutory authorities, particularly in the context of the admitted position that both sites are located in unapproved layouts.
6. On a meticulous examination of the pleadings and materials placed on record by both parties, this Court finds it necessary to extract paragraphs 4 and 7 of the writ petition, which are reproduced below for ready reference:
"4. The Petitioner submits that the Petitioner purchased the above said property from Sri. Ganesh Havanur, through the Registered Sale Deed dated 18/09/2024, registered as Document No.YPR-1-06242-2024-25, Book No.I, registered in the office of the Sub-registrar Rajajinagar (Yeshwanthpura), Bengaluru. The said sale transaction is reflecting in the Encumbrance Certificate. For the same the copy of the registered sale deed dated 18/09/2024 and Encumbrance Certificate is produced herewith as ANNEXURE-B & C for kind perusal of this Hon'ble court. After the purchase of the above said property the Petitioner has paid property tax and applied for the transfer of all the revenue records before the concerned BBMP authority.-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:26218 WP No. 8450 of 2025 HC-KAR
7. The Petitioner submits that the Respondent No.6 claiming to be the owner of the site adjacent, formed in different survey number, by the different person, without any approval from any authority. The said site is situated towards the East side of the above said property (Petitioner's Property). The above said Respondent No.6 has encroached the road towards the East side of the above said property (Petitioner's Property) and putting up illegal construction without leaving set back, by encroaching the road and without obtaining plan or license or approval from the Respondent No.1 to 3. Further the Respondent No.6 is blocking the entrance/road to the above said property (Petitioner's Property). For the same the original Photos and Receipt is produced herewith as ANNEXURE M to U for kind perusal of this Hon'ble court. Such being the case the Petitioner approached the Respondent No.6 and her Husband several times personally and requested not to block entrance and to stop illegal construction on the road. For the same the Respondent No.6 and her Husband have threatened the Petitioner in dare consequences, further they informed the Petitioner that they have men, money and political power and no one can stop their illegal construction activity. Having no other alternative the Petitioner approached the jurisdictional police and try to lodge complainant against the Respondent No.6. For the same the police refused to take complaint, by saying that the matter is in civil nature and they cannot take any action without court -8- NC: 2025:KHC:26218 WP No. 8450 of 2025 HC-KAR order and they refused to give endorsement for the best reasons know to them."
7. This Court also deems it fit to take note of the description of Sy.No.46/1 in the partition deed obtained by the petitioner's vendor. The same is culled out as under:
"SCHEDULE - D (Property Allotted to Shri.Ashoka H alias Ashoka Havanur, the Third Party herein) Item No:1, All that piece an parcel of the property being residential land of in converted Sy.No.46/1, Site bearing No:11, Now comes under BBMP, Ward No:14, Corporation No:4, Katha No:986, Situated at Havanur Badavane, Bagalagunte Village, Yeshwantpur Hobli Bangalore North Taluk, in measuring East to West:
78 feet and North to South: 162 fect (141+21 feet) and bounded on the:-
East by: Land belonging to Shri. Ganesh Havanur, the Fourth party herein and as per Item No. 1 of Schedule - E property herein, West by: Survey No. 46/2 (now Sy. No. 47/2) of Dr. H. Parameshwar Bhatt, North by: Site No:10, as per item No. 1 of Schedule-C herein (Site belongs to Smt. Bheemappa Havanur, the Second party herein) South by: Land of South Eastern Roadways (Now private layout named Ramaiah layout formed in Sy.No. 16 of Nagasandra Village, Yeshwanthapur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk)"-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:26218 WP No. 8450 of 2025 HC-KAR
8. This Court also deems it fit to extract the rectification of partition deed, which is evidenced at Annexure-E schedule-E pertains to Sy.No.46/1. The same is culled out as under:
"AFTER RECTIFICATION SCHEDULE - E (Property Allotted to Shri.Ganesh Havanur, the Fourth Party) Item No:1, All that piece and parcel of the property being residential converted land in Sy.No.46/1, Site bearing No:17, Now comes under BBMP, Ward No:14, Corporation No:5, Khata No:985, Situated at Havanur Badavane, Bagalagunte Village, Yeshwanthapur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, in measuring East to West: 75 feet and North to South:
141 feet., and bounded on the:-
East by: Land belonging to Siriappa, Channappa (now private layout formed and named as Havanur Extension formed in Sy. No. 46/2, 45 and 50) West by: Site No: 16 as per Item No. 1 of Schedule-D property herein belonging to Shri. Ashoka H alias Ashok Havanur, the Third party herein, North by: Private road of 21 feet wide, formed in sy.no,46/1 South by: Land of South Eastern Roadways (Now private layout named Ramaiah layout formed in Sy.No. 16 of Nagasandia Village, Yeshwanthapur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk)"
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:26218 WP No. 8450 of 2025 HC-KAR
9. Upon a detailed consideration of the pleadings and the description of the respective properties, it is evident that the petitioner is the owner of Site No.11, which is part of a private, unapproved layout formed in Sy.No.46/1. Conversely, private respondent No.6 claims ownership of Site No.E5, which is located in a distinct and separate survey number, namely Sy.No.50/2, and is similarly part of an unapproved layout. Thus, it is not in dispute that both layouts one in Sy.No.46/1 and the other in Sy.No.50/2 have been formed without obtaining requisite statutory approvals from the competent planning authority.
10. The petitioner claims to have purchased Site No.11 from the vendor who developed the private layout in Sy.No.46/1. A sketch produced at Document No.7, which has been placed on record by the respondent, clearly indicates that the petitioner's site is west-facing and that a north-south road exists along the western boundary of the petitioner's site. This internal road
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:26218 WP No. 8450 of 2025 HC-KAR provides direct connectivity to the main road named 'Widia Poornaprajna School Road'. Therefore, prima facie, the petitioner has an existing access to the public road network through the internal road situated on the western side of his property.
11. Despite this existing access, the petitioner now seeks to assert a right of access through the adjoining unapproved layout formed in Sy.No.50/2. However, upon careful scrutiny of the layout in Sy.No.46/1, it is noted that Site No.10 lies immediately to the north of the petitioner's Site No.11. There is no road or passage demarcated between Site Nos.10 and 11 that would allow for any form of connection or access to the layout situated in Sy.No.50/2. The petitioner's attempt to assert access over a road formed in the adjacent layout,particularly a road which lies in a different survey number and which forms part of a separate unapproved private layout cannot be countenanced in law.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:26218 WP No. 8450 of 2025 HC-KAR
12. Given that the petitioner's property is west-facing and has an established road access on the western side, this Court is of the considered view that the road situated in Sy.No.50/2 is a private road, formed as part of an unapproved layout, and the petitioner cannot claim any enforceable legal right of access over the same. The pleadings and representation relied upon by the petitioner make it apparent that he is attempting to assert an unfounded right of ingress and egress through the adjoining layout, over a portion of land that neither belongs to him nor forms part of his vendor's layout.
13. Be that as it may, since the petitioner already has a dedicated access road on the western boundary of Site No.11 formed by his own vendor as part of the layout in Sy.No.46/1,this Court is of the view that the relief sought in the petitioner's representation, which forms the basis of this writ petition, is wholly misconceived and cannot be granted in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:26218 WP No. 8450 of 2025 HC-KAR of India. The dispute raised by the petitioner appears to be essentially civil in nature. Unless the petitioner is in a position to establish a legally recognized right of access through the road situated in Sy.No.50/2, he cannot seek a writ of mandamus directing the authorities to enforce a non-existent right in his favour.
14. It may, however, be noted that Site No.E5, owned by respondent No.6, is located immediately adjacent to Site No.11 owned by the petitioner. Therefore, if respondent No.6 is found to be in violation of the sanctioned building norms or setback requirements, it is always open to the petitioner to lodge an appropriate complaint with the competent planning authority. Nevertheless, under the guise of claiming a right of access over a road situated in the adjoining unapproved layout in Sy.No.50/2, the petitioner cannot seek to restrain or obstruct the ongoing construction activity of respondent No.6, particularly when no legal right over the said road is established.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:26218 WP No. 8450 of 2025 HC-KAR With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
This order will not come in the way of the petitioner in seeking appropriate relief by approaching the competent civil court.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4