Karnataka High Court
Sri.G.R. Srinivasa Reddy vs The Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike on 12 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:6252-DB
W.A. No.888/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO.888/2022 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
SRI. G.R. SRINIVASA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
S/O LATE SRI. G.A. RAMASWAMY REDDY
R/AT. GUNJUR VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI
BENGALURU EAST TALUK
BENGALURU-560087.
Digitally signed
by RUPA V
...APPELLANT
Location: HIGH
COURT OF (BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SR. ADV., FOR
KARNATAKA SRI. PRASHANTH H.S. ADV.,)
AND:
1. THE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R SQUARE, BENGALURU 560002
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
MAHADEVAPURA ZONE
WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD, R.H.B COLONY
MAHADEVAPURA, BENGALURU 560048.
3. THE REVENUE OFFICER
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
MAHADEVAPURA ZONE
BENGALURU 560048.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:6252-DB
W.A. No.888/2022
4. THE ASST. REVENUE OFFICER
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
WHITEFIELD SUB DIVISION
BENGALURU-560066.
5. SMT. REKHA HAMILTON
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
D/O B. RATNAKAR RAI
NO.511, 5TH FLOOR, CARLTON TOWER
NO.1, AIRPORT ROAD, BENGALURU 560008.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN REDDY K.S. ADV., FOR R1 TO R4
SRI. ABHINAV R, ADV., FOR R5)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21/07/2022, PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON BLE COURT IN WP
NO.33029/2015 (LB-BMP) AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE
WRIT PETITION NO.33029/2015 (LB-BMP). PASS SUCH OTHER
ORDER OR ORDERS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO
GRANT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
CASE, INCLUDING THE COSTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:6252-DB
W.A. No.888/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant as
well as the learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellant submits that the only grievance of the appellant
as against the judgment is that the learned Single Judge
had relegated the parties to their remedies before the civil
Court and had made the impugned order subject to the
outcome of the civil suits which are pending between the
parties. However, the learned Single Judge has stated that
the revenue entries in the name of the writ petitioner -
respondent No.5 herein, in respect of the sites in the
records of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP)
shall continue to exist till the disposal of the civil suits. It
is submitted that there was no finding with regard to the
correctness or otherwise of the order impugned and that
there was also no interim order during the pendency of the
writ petition. It is submitted that pursuant to the
NC: 2025:KHC:6252-DB
impugned order dated 07.01.2015 passed by respondent
No.2, the khata which was entered in the name of the writ
petitioner - respondent No.5 herein stood deleted on
10.02.2015. It is submitted that the continuance of the
khata in the name of the writ petitioner - respondent No.5
herein was, therefore, not justified in view of the fact that
the khata in the name of the writ petitioner - respondent
No.5 herein already stood deleted.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent
No.5 would, on the other hand, contend that respondent
No.5 has a decree in an injunction suit in her favour as
against the appellant herein and that it was in view of the
findings of the civil Court in the injunction suit, that the
directions to restore the khata till the pending civil dispute
is decided, was rendered by the learned Single Judge. It is
also stated that the learned Single Judge has specifically
directed the trial Court to decide the suits uninfluenced by
the khata that stands in the name of the writ petitioner -
respondent No.5 herein and that there is absolutely no
NC: 2025:KHC:6252-DB
grievance that the appellant can have in view of the said
directions. It is further submitted that Annexure-F order
has attained finality and that the directions issued by the
learned Single Judge was, therefore, perfectly justified.
4. Having considered the contentions advanced,
we notice that the challenge in the writ petition was
against Annexure-K order of the BBMP. The learned Single
Judge has not entered any findings with regard to the
sustainability or otherwise of the said order. All that has
been stated by the learned Single Judge is that since civil
disputes are pending between the parties, the order would
be subject to outcome of the civil suits. It is further clear
that pursuant to the impugned order dated 07.01.2015
passed by respondent No.2, the khata which was entered
in the name of the writ petitioner - respondent No.5 herein
stood deleted on 10.02.2015. It is also not in dispute that
there was no interim order during the pendency of the writ
petition.
NC: 2025:KHC:6252-DB
5. In the above view of the matter, we are of the
opinion that the status quo as on 10.02.2015 with regard
to the khata has to be maintained till the civil suits are
disposed of.
6. With the above observations, writ appeal is
disposed of.
The trial Court shall decide the issue uninfluenced by
any of the observations of this Court or of the learned
Single Judge.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
BSR
