Karnataka High Court
Sri Vinod M L Kumar vs The Commissioner on 2 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:18468
WP No. 6749 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 6749 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
SRI. VINOD M.L. KUMAR,
S/O MUNI SANJEEVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT NAGASANDRA VILLAGE,
YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VISHNU HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER,
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGRA PALIKE,
HUDSON CIRCLE,
Digitally signed by
CHAITHRA A BENGALURU - 560 002.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. THE ENGINEER IN CHIEF AND
DESIGNATED CHIEF ENGINEER
STORM WATER DRAIN,
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 002.
3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
DASARAHALLI ZONE,
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
DASARAHALLI,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:18468
WP No. 6749 of 2024
HC-KAR
BENGALURU - 560 036.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MONESH KUMAR K.B, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE R-
1 THE COMMISSIONER BBMP HUDSON CIRCLE BENGALURU -
560002 TO CONSIDER THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER AS
PER THE LEGAL NOTICE DATED 10.11.2023 VIDE ANNX-C 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
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed seeking a mandamus against
respondent No.1 to consider the petitioner's legal notice
dated 10.11.2023 as well as representation dated
19.01.2024, as per Annexure-C and D respectively.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned standing counsel appearing for respondents No.1
to 3.
NC: 2025:KHC:18468
HC-KAR
3. The petitioner is compelled to knock the doors
of the writ court, feeling aggrieved by the formation of a
drainage/SWD in the land owned by the petitioner bearing
Sy.No.5/1 and Sy.No.5/2 of Nagasandra village,
Yeshwanthapura-1 hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. The
petitioner asserts that he is the absolute owner of the
petition lands, which are agricultural lands and he is in
exclusive possession of the petition lands. The petitioner is
asserting that the respondents have handedly formed a
drainage in the petition lands without acquiring the lands
as provided under the law. Therefore, feeling aggrieved by
the inaction on the part of officials of respondent No.1, the
petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned standing counsel appearing for the
respondents, on instructions, has assured this Court that
the petitioner's representation dated 19.01.2024,
evidenced at Annexure-D, will be considered by
respondent No.1 and appropriate orders will be passed in
accordance with law.
NC: 2025:KHC:18468
HC-KAR
5. On perusal of the records, this Court is more
than satisfied that there is complete laxness on the part of
respondent No.1 and his officials in not responding to the
legal notice dated 10.11.2023, evidenced at Annexure-C
and to the representation dated 19.01.2024, evidenced at
Annexure-D. This Court in numerous judgments has
consistently held that though the right to property is not a
fundamental right, it is a constitutional right and the State
and its instrumentalities should take recourse to the
provisions of the Land Reforms Act before a private
property is utilized. The petitioner, through the legal notice
and representation, is asserting that the new drainage is
formed on his property. Though the representation is of
the year 2024 and the legal notice is of the year 2023, the
respondents have not taken a stand either disputing or
admitting the formation of the drainage in the petition
lands. A sketch furnished by the petitioner, which is
through a private engineer, depicts the utilization of a
portion of the petitioner's land in Sy.No.5/1 and
NC: 2025:KHC:18468
HC-KAR
Sy.No.5/2. Therefore, the respondents are hereby
obligated to consider the petitioner's legal notice as well as
representation and pass appropriate orders. In the event
the respondents acknowledge and admit that the
petitioner's land is utilized to form a drainage, the
consequences are bound to follow and the respondents are
required to acknowledge and compensate the petitioner in
the manner known to law.
6. For the reasons stated supra, respondent No.1
is hereby granted two months time to consider the
petitioner's legal notice and representation and pass
appropriate order in accordance with law. For the
foregoing reasons, this Court passes the following:
ORDER
i. The writ petition is allowed;
ii. Respondent No.1 hereby directed to consider the
petitioner's legal notice dated 10.11.2023 as per
Annexure-C and representation dated
NC: 2025:KHC:18468
HC-KAR
19.01.2024 as per Annexure-D and pass
appropriate orders in accordance with law;
iii. This exercise shall be accomplished within a
period of two months from the date of receipt of
order copy.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
HDK
CT: BHK
