The Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Vs Kirloskar Electric Company Employees Housing Co. Op Society (Regd.) — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

The Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Vs Kirloskar Electric Company Employees Housing Co. Op Society (Regd.) — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the petitioners; the review petition was dismissed. Before parting, the Court directed that the land between Site Nos.45 and 46 be treated as Site No.45A, that the petitioners enter respondent No.1's name in the municipal records relating to Site No.45A, and that respondent No.3 take appropriate steps to incorporate Site No.45A between Site Nos.45 and 46.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 26.09.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.No.65620/2016 warrants review under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC. +1 more

Court's answer

The order dated 26.09.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.No.65620/2016 does not warrant any review.

Ratio / Principle

The review petition is dismissed.

Key takeaways

The piece of land lying between Site Nos.45 and 46 shall be treated as Site No.45A, and the petitioners shall enter the name of respondent No.1 in the municipal records relating to Site No.45A.ratio¶38
Respondent No.3 (Bangalore Development Authority) shall take appropriate steps for incorporating Site No.45A between Site No.45 and Site No.46.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Review Petition No.6 of 2024 under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC, filed by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and its Special Commissioner (Estates) seeking review of the order dated 26.09.2022 passed in W.P.No.65620/2016 (LB-BMP): Held, the said order does not warrant any review; the review petition is dismissed. Before parting, the Court directed that the piece of land lying between Site Nos.45 and 46, which had been directed to be entered in the property tax register, shall be treated as Site No.45A; the BBMP was directed to enter the name of the Kirloskar Electric Company Employees Housing Co-op. Society in the municipal records relating to Site No.45A, and the Bangalore Development Authority was directed to take appropriate steps for incorporating Site No.45A between Site Nos.45 and 46. (R. Nataraj, J.; decision dated 05.11.2025.)

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:44819 RP No. 6 of 2024

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

REVIEW PETITION NO. 6 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

THE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE-560002.

THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONER (ESTATES) BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE-560002.

THE PETITIONERS ARE REPRESENTED BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR PATIL, HEAD OF THE LEGAL CELL AND DELEGATED AUTHORITY, BBMP, BENGALURU.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. SANJEEV B.L., ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

AND:

KIRLOSKAR ELECTRIC COMPANY EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OP. SOCIETY (REGD.,) HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT NO.779-A, N. GANGANARASIAH ROAD 5^TH STAGE, KIRLOSKAR LAYOUT, HESARAGHATTA ROAD, NAGASANDRA POST, BANGALORE-560073 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI RAGHAVENDRA S/O LATE SRI. SRINIVASACHAR, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:44819 RP No. 6 of 2024

HC-KAR

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARAPARK WEST, BENGALURU-560020 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANIL KUMAR R., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

SRI. B. BOPANNA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2;

SRI. B.S.SACHIN, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3)

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2022 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP 65620/2016 (LB-BMP) AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE SAID WRIT PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed to review the order dated 26.09.2022

passed by this Court in W.P.No.65620/2016.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners

and the learned counsel for the respondent No.1, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.2 as well as

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:44819 RP No. 6 of 2024

HC-KAR

the learned counsel for respondent No.3, this Court is of the opinion that the order dated 26.09.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.No.65620/2016 does not warrant any review.

Accordingly, this review petition is dismissed .

However, before parting from the case, it is relevant to note that this Court had directed the petitioners herein (respondent Nos.1 and 2 in W.P.No.65620/2016) to enter the name of the respondent No.1 herein (petitioner in W.P.No.65620/2016) in the property tax register in respect of a piece of land, which was not allotted a number in the layout plan. Having regard to the fact that the said piece of land lies between the site Nos.45 and 46. The same shall be treated as Site No.45A. The petitioners herein shall enter the name of respondent No.1 herein in the municipal records relating to Site No.45A. The respondent no.3 shall take appropriate steps for incorporating Site No.45A between Site No.45 and Site No.46.

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33