Karnataka High Court
P Praveena Kumari vs Chief Commissioner Bbmp on 13 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:6538-DB
WA No. 1048 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. N.V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I. ARUN
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1048 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
1. P PRAVEENA KUMARI
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/AT 50/1, SRINIVASA NILAYA
NEAR OLD KSVK SCHOOL
CHANNASANDRA
KADUGODI POST
BANGALORE-560067
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. P PRAVEENA KUMARI, PARTY-IN-PERSON)
Digitally signed by
VASANTHAKUMARY
BK AND:
Location: High Court
of Karnataka
1. CHIEF COMMISSIONER, BBMP
BRUHAT MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP)
BANGALORE-560002
2. COMMISSIONER (BBMP)
MAHADEVAPURA ZONE
BRUHAT BENGALURU PALIKE (BBMP)
HUDSON CIRCLE
BANGALORE-560001
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:6538-DB
WA No. 1048 of 2024
3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BBMP
BBMP, WHITEFIELD SUB-DIVISION
WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU-560066
4. C S SRINIVASA
R/AT NO.50/1, SRINIVASA BUILDING
NEAR OLD KSVK SCHOOL
CHANNASANDRA
KADUGODI POST
BENGALURU-560067
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K V BATHE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO 3;
SRI K N SHIVAREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED ON I.A.NO.2/2024 IN W.P.NO.2993/2024 DATED
10.04.2024 BY LEARND SINGLE JUDGE AND CONSEQUENTLY
ALLOW THE APPLICATION FOR IMPLEADMENT AND ALLOW
THE APPLICANT TO BE ARRAYED AS A PARTY RESPONDENT
IN W.P.NO.2993/2024.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN
AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:6538-DB
WA No. 1048 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
N. V. ANJARIA
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)
Heard learned appellant-party-in-person Smt. P. Praveena
Kumari, learned advocate Mr. K.V. Bathe Gowda for respondent
Nos.1 to 3 and learned advocate Mr. K.N. Shivareddy for
respondent No.4.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 10.04.2024
passed by learned Single Judge on Interim Application No.2 of
2024 which was an application for impleadment filed by the
appellant herein. It was filed in the proceedings of Writ Petition
No.2993 of 2024.
3. The original petitioner had filed the petition challenging the
order of the respondent-the Chief Commissioner dated 12.01.2024
passed in Appeal No.70 of 2023 under Section 253 of the Bruhat
Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020. From the facts, it
NC: 2025:KHC:6538-DB
appears that the petitioner has constructed a building of multi-
residential units on the land.
3.1 The applicant, who seeks to implead herself, had filed a
complaint alleging that there are deviations in the sanctioned plan.
The complaint proceedings culminated into the aforesaid appeal.
3.2 It further transpires that the petitioner is the landlord
whereas, the impleading applicant is a tenant. The petitioner-
landlord has initiated eviction proceedings. The applicant does not
dispute that she is a tenant.
4. The contention of the petitioner-landlord is that she cannot
assert any interest in the property and has no interest in the subject
matter of appeal which is between the petitioner and the authorities
of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) whereas,
according to the applicant, she is affected by the construction and
wants to initiate separate proceedings. It is the case that she is in
possession of certain documents which show that the construction
is contrary to the sanctioned plan.
NC: 2025:KHC:6538-DB
5. As noted earlier, the applicant is only a tenant. The dispute
in the writ petition is challenge to the order in appeal under Section
253 of the Act of 2020. It is essentially a dispute between the
petitioner and the authorities. Looking to the status of the
impleading applicant vis-à-vis the landlord and vis-à-vis the
property, it cannot be said that the applicant is a necessary or even
a proper party.
5.1 The decision of this court in Major K.A. Mathew (Retd.) Vs.
S. Ramesh and others [2016 (1) AKR 409] supports the aforesaid
view. It was the case of impleadment of the party in the appeal
which was preferred by the private party against the order passed
by the BBMP for demolition of a portion of the building on the
ground that the building was contrary to the sanctioned plan. It
was stated by the court that the lis was between the private party
and the BBMP only. The petitioner, though he was the original
complainant, was held by the court not to be necessary party.
Mere apprehension on part of the party that the BBMP would not
place all facts before the court, could not be a ground to implead
the party.
NC: 2025:KHC:6538-DB
6. Thus, the subject matter of appeal before learned Single
Judge is a challenge to the order passed by the competent
authority under Section 253 of the Act of 2020. It cannot be said
that the applicant, in capacity of a tenant of a unit in the property, is
an interested party in any manner to permit her to be impleaded.
As stated above, the lis lies between the petitioner and the BBMP.
6.1 The order passed by learned Single Judge rejecting the
prayer and dismissing the interim application is legal and proper.
No interference is called for.
7. The appeal is dismissed as meritless.
In view of dismissal of the appeal, the interlocutory
applications will not survive. They are accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
(N. V. ANJARIA)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(M.I.ARUN)
JUDGE
BKV
