Petitioner sought directions to BBMP to act on complaints against a respondent's allegedly encroaching construction. The Court noted the same question was pending in an appeal against a civil suit decree and disposed of the petition, directing the petitioner to pursue those proceedings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
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:
Digitally signed by ANAND N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
NC: 2024:KHC:42548 WP No. 2751 of 2024
…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 WP No. 2751 of 2024
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 WP No. 2751 of 2024
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/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Court should direct BBMP to act on complaints of encroaching construction while a civil suit decree on the same question is under appeal.
Sri H. Hanumantha
Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike
The Executive Engineer BBMP Yelahanka Division
Sri Parthasarathi
B M Shyam Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
