Dismissed¶53

Sri P Raju Poojari v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC19 Mar 2025WA/1426/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC Division Bench writ appeal dismissed 19.03.2025 (NC: 2025:KHC:12388-DB); BBMP/Bengaluru alleged encroachment; demolition of construction obstructing common road adjoining government land; private developer M/s Navakar Builders; disputed questions of fact; civil suits O.S. No.4572/2017 and O.S. No.7501/2018 pending between parties; MFA No.7726/2019; extraordinary writ jurisdiction not invoked; Section 4 Karnataka High Court Act; Single Judge order dated 12.08.2024 in WP No.15152/2021 (LB-BMP) upheld.

What did the court decide?

Both sides having agitated their rights by instituting respective civil suits, and respondent No.6 enjoying an interim order, this stood as a good ground not to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction. ¶51

Sri P Raju Poojari Vs the Commissioner — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶53

Issue for consideration

Whether the extraordinary writ jurisdiction could be invoked to direct demolition of construction alleged to encroach upon the road/government land and to grant related directions, when the controversy involves disputed questions of fact and civil suits are pending between the parties. +1 more

¶46

Court's answer

¶51

Ratio / Principle

The subject matter controversy involved disputed questions of facts, as rightly observed by the learned Single Judge.

¶51

Key takeaways

No error could be booked in the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge.ratio¶52
The writ appeal is meritless and stands dismissed.ratio¶53

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench (Chief Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice M.I. Arun) dismissed Writ Appeal No.1426 of 2024, filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, challenging the learned Single Judge's order dated 12.08.2024 dismissing Writ Petition No.15152/2021 (LB-BMP). The appellant-petitioner had prayed for demolition of construction raised by respondent No.6 (M/s Navakar Builders) alleged to obstruct a common road adjoining government land, a direction to respondent No.6 not to sell the property until encroachment was removed, and recovery of damages caused to Government property. The Court held that both sides having agitated their rights through respective civil suits (O.S. No.4572/2017 by the petitioner; O.S. No.7501/2018 by respondent No.6, whose injunction application was allowed vide order dated 19.02.2019), and respondent No.6 enjoying an interim order, this stood as a good ground not to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction; the controversy also involved disputed questions of fact. Finding no error in the learned Single Judge's judgment, the Bench held the appeal meritless and dismissed it.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:12388-DB WA No. 1426 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NO. 1426 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI P RAJU POOJARI S/O PONNA POOJARI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT NO.9/4, 5^TH MAIN WARD NO.96, RAMACHANDRAPURA OLD OKALIPURA

¶11

Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

BENGALURU-560 021

¶13

(BY SRI T PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

…APPELLANT

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R. SQUARE BENGALURU-560 002

¶17

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR LAND RECORDS DIVISION -1, K R CIRCLE BENGALURU- 560 001

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:12388-DB WA No. 1426 of 2024

¶20

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE GANDHINAGAR TMC ROYAN ROAD BENGALURU- 560 009

¶21

THE TAHSILDAR BENGALURU NORTH TALUK KANDAYA BHAVANA K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU–560 009

¶22

THE ADDL. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (BMTF) BBMP MAIN BUILDING 1^ST FLOOR, N.R. ROAD BENGALURU -560 002

¶23

M/S NAVAKAR BUILDERS REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM REP BY SRI SUSHIL KUMAR AND SRI NOORULLA HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.22/1 MADARSAB LANE, COTTON PET, BENGALURU-560 053

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI N.R. JAGADEESWARA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 & 3 SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2, 4 & 5)

¶26

THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.08.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION No.15152/2021 (LB-BMP) AND BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION No.15152/2021 (LB-BMP) AND TO PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS AS DEEMED NECESSARY IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12388-DB WA No. 1426 of 2024

¶28

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I. ARUN

¶30

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶31

(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)

¶32

Heard learned Advocate Mr. T.Prakash for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate Mr. K.S.Harish for respondent Nos.2, 4 and 5 and learned Advocate Mr. N.R. Jagadeshwara for respondent Nos.1 and 3.

¶33

Appellant is the original petitioner, who, by preferring the present appeal, has called in question judgment and order of learned Single Judge dated 12^th August 2024 whereby the petition came to be dismissed.

¶34

2.1 What was prayed by the petitioner before learned Single Judge

¶35

was to direct respondent authorities to take action to demolish the construction on the land which was alleged to be encroached. A direction was asked for against private respondent No.6 not to sell

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12388-DB WA No. 1426 of 2024

¶37

the property under the encroachment is removed. There was a yet another prayer requiring the respondents to recover the damages caused to the Government property and initiate the action in law.

¶38

The facts as emerge from the record are that respondent No.6 happens to be land developer who purchased the property situated adjacent to the property of the petitioner and that there was a common road passing between both the properties which road further was connecting the government land.

¶39

3.1 It was the case of the petitioner that taking unadvantage of adjoining government property, respondent No.6-developer started construction of building which, according to the petitioner, obstructed the public road as fencing with sheets was erected.

¶40

3.2 The aspects which were noticeable were inter alia that the petitioner had filed suit in original suit No.4572 of 2017 for relief of permanent injunction and also filed was the application for interim injunction, against respondent No.6 and that the said interlocutory application stood rejected on 21^st November 2017, to which there was no further challenge. In the same way, respondent No.6 had also instituted original suit No.7501 of 2018 against the petitioner and

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12388-DB WA No. 1426 of 2024

¶42

the injunction application of respondent No.6 in the said suit was allowed. Though appeal is pending, no interim order has been granted, it is recorded by learned Single Judge.

¶43

Learned Single Judge noticing the facts and the pendency of the suits including the subsequent suit filed by respondent No.6, reasoned as under, extracting from paragraph 15,

¶44

“Thereafter, respondent No.6 filed a suit in O.S. No.7501/2018 for the relief of a permanent injunction restraining the petitioner herein from interfering in the peaceful possession and enjoyment. In the said suit, the respondent No.6 filed an interlocutory application seeking an order of temporary injunction. The said application was allowed vide order dated 19.02.2019. The petitioner aggrieved by the order preferred an appeal in MFA No.7726/2019. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 submits that the said appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. It is the case of the petitioner that there exists a road between the property of the petitioner and respondent No.6. The said fact is denied by respondent No.6. There is a dispute in regard to the existence of road.”

¶45

4.1 In the same paragraph, learned Single Judge stated,

¶46

“Hence, the writ petition involves disputed questions of fact and further, there is also a suit pending between the parties before the Civil Court. In view of the same, as the suits are pending before the Civil Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits, the

¶47

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:12388-DB WA No. 1426 of 2024

¶49

petitioner has not made out any ground to entertain the writ petition.”

¶50

Thus, it is evident that in relation to the subject matter, which is

¶51

brought under the writ jurisdiction, both the sides have been agitating their rights by instituting the respective suits. Respondent NO.6 has been enjoying interim order also. This stands as a good ground not to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The subject matter controversy also involved disputed questions of facts as rightly observed by learned Single Judge.

¶52