Karnataka High Court
K. Jyothi Prakash vs The Commissioner on 21 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:2555-DB
WA No. 1255 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1255 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
1. K. JYOTHI PRAKASH
AGED 68 YEARS,
S/O LATE K. KRISHNAMURTHY RAO
R/AT NO.97, BSM LAYOUT BANDEMATT,
KENGERI UPANAGARA
BANGALORE - 560 060.
...APPELLANT
(BY MS. CHITHARA B P, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. KARUMBAIAH T A, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by H
K HEMA
Location: 1. THE COMMISSIONER
High Court
of Karnataka BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
HUDSON CIRCLE,
BANGALORE - 560 002
2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
KENGERI SUB DIVISION
KENGERI,
BANGALORE - 560 060
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:2555-DB
WA No. 1255 of 2024
3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
RAJARAJESHWARI CIRCLE
KENGERI UPANAGARA
NO.2085, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
KENGERI UPANAGARA,
BANGALORE - 560 060
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. KARTHIKEYAN B S, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO MODIFY THE
ORDER DATED 20.02.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.7178 OF 2021 AND DIRECT THE
RESPONDENT BBMP TO TAKE APPROPRIATE LEGAL ACTION
ON THE BUILDING CONSTRUCTED BY THE DEVELOPER IN
THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WITHIN A SPECIFIED PERIOD
BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY THE
APPELLANT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN
AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
N. V. ANJARIA
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:2555-DB
WA No. 1255 of 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN)
Heard learned advocate Ms. B.P. Chithara for
Mr. T.A. Karumbaiah for appellant and learned advocate
Mr. B.S. Karthikeyan for respondent - Bruhat Bengaluru
Mahanagara Palike (BBMP).
2. This appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act,
1961 is preferred by the original petitioner against the judgment
and order dated 20.02.2023 passed by learned Single Judge in writ
petition No.7178 of 2021.
3. The appellant is said to be the owner of Site Nos.97 and 98,
Katha No.3961, 4th Block, Bandemutt Layout, Kommaghatta Road,
Kengeri, Bangalore South. He is said to have entered into a Joint
Development Agreement with one M/s.Yogakshema Builders and
Developers. The respondent-BBMP has issued a notice under
Section 308 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976
asking the appellant to produce certain documents, failing which,
action would be taken by considering the building as
NC: 2025:KHC:2555-DB
un-authorized. In reply, the appellant has requested the
respondents to take necessary action in respect of the building
constructed and has submitted that he has cancelled the Joint
Development Agreement. As no action was initiated, the writ
petition came to be filed with a prayer to direct the respondents to
act on the representations of the appellant and take appropriate
action in respect of the construction made on the property.
4. Learned Single Judge on the ground that the dispute
essentially involves a lis between the appellant and the developer
and in the absence of the developer and without hearing him, no
effective order could be passed has observed that the petitioner
can resolve the dispute before the Competent Civil Court while
reserving the liberty to the respondent-BBMP to take appropriate
action in accordance with law and disposed of the writ petition
accordingly.
5. Not satisfied by the order passed by learned Single Judge,
the present writ appeal is filed with a prayer to direct the
respondents-BBMP to take appropriate legal action on the building
NC: 2025:KHC:2555-DB
constructed by the developer on the property in question within a
specified period by considering the representation of the appellant.
6. Admittedly, there is a dispute between the appellant and the
developer of the property. Irrespective of the dispute between
them, if construction is not made on the property in accordance
with law, the respondent-BBMP, has the necessary authority to
initiate appropriate action in accordance with law against both the
appellant as well the developer of the property. The same has
been observed by learned Single Judge in the impugned order. If
there is any dispute between the appellant and developer or his
legal heirs, the appellant has to approach the Civil Court of
competent jurisdiction. The appellant without making the developer
or his legal heir a party to the proceedings cannot be permitted to
use this proceedings to harm the interest of the developer by
seeking a direction against the respondent-BBMP. Learned Single
Judge has rightly observed the same and has disposed of the writ
petition.
7. We do not see any error in the well reasoned order of
learned Single Judge.
NC: 2025:KHC:2555-DB
8. The writ appeal is hereby dismissed.
SD/-
(N. V. ANJARIA)
CHIEF JUSTICE
SD/-
(M.I.ARUN)
JUDGE
VMB
