Karnataka High Court
Sri. H. Hanumantha vs Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike on 23 October, 2024
Author: B M Shyam Prasad
Bench: B M Shyam Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:42548
WP No. 2751 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2751 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
SRI. H. HANUMANTHA
S/O LATE HANUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT NO 68, SAMPIGEHALLI MAIN ROAD,
SREE VENKATESHWARA NAGAR LAYOUT,
BANGALORE- 560064.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NAGARAJA S.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BRUHATH BENGALURU
MAHANAGARA PALIKE
HEAD OFFICE,
N.R. SQUARE,
HUDSON CIRCLE,
Digitally BANGALORE - 560002
signed by
ANAND N REPRESENTED BY ITS
Location: COMMISSIONER.
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
BBMP YELAHANKA DIVISION,
BYATARAYANAPURA
SAHAKARANAGAR A BLOCK,
NO 2152/20, DEFENCE COLONY ,
BWSSB TANK ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560092.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:42548
WP No. 2751 of 2024
3. SRI PARTHASARATHI
S/O S. RANGANNA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/AT 1ST A CROSS,
JAKKUR LAYOUT
BANGALORE - 560064.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.PAWAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NO. 1 AND 2 TO TAKE
ACTION AGAINST THE R3 BASED ON THE COMPLAINTS
03/04/2018, 21/08/2021, 11/10/2021 AND
12/01/2022 LODGED BY THE PETITIONER AS PER
ANNEXURES-C, D, E AND F.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner asserts that he is the absolute
owner, along with his son Sri Chethan B H, of the
property in No.9, Jakkur Village, Yelahanka,
Byatarayanapura Ward No.7, Bengaluru - 560 064
and that the third respondent is constructing a
NC: 2024:KHC:42548
building encroaching the road to his property but
Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike [BBMP] is not
taking any action. The petitioner, in the light of these
assertions, is seeking directions to the first and the
second respondents to initiate action against the
alleged illegal construction by the third respondent in
terms of the different complaints filed by him.
However, the petitioner, has also referred to the
civil proceedings initiated by him in O.S.
No.2630/2018 culminating with a decree directing
the third respondent to remove the construction,
while also mentioning that the third respondent has
called this Judgment and decree in question in an
appeal before this Court which is pending
consideration. This Court is of the considered view
that if the petitioner has instituted a suit and the
question whether the construction is on the road or
otherwise is seized in an appeal, the petitioner's
grievance must be addressed in such proceedings,
NC: 2024:KHC:42548
and the petitioner must approach the BBMP on
culmination of such proceedings. The petition
therefore stands disposed of with observations as
aforesaid.
Sd/-
(B M SHYAM PRASAD)
JUDGE
AN/-
