Sri.G.R. Srinivasa Reddy Vs the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

SRI. G.R. SRINIVASA REDDY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O LATE SRI. G.A. RAMASWAMY REDDY R/AT. GUNJUR VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU-560087.

¶10

(BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SR. ADV., FOR SRI. PRASHANTH H.S. ADV.,)

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R SQUARE, BENGALURU 560002 REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶14

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE MAHADEVAPURA ZONE WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD, R.H.B COLONY MAHADEVAPURA, BENGALURU 560048.

¶15

THE REVENUE OFFICER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE MAHADEVAPURA ZONE BENGALURU 560048.

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6252-DB W.A. No.888/2022

¶17

THE ASST. REVENUE OFFICER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE WHITEFIELD SUB DIVISION BENGALURU-560066.

¶18

SMT. REKHA HAMILTON AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS D/O B. RATNAKAR RAI NO.511, 5TH FLOOR, CARLTON TOWER NO.1, AIRPORT ROAD, BENGALURU 560008.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN REDDY K.S. ADV., FOR R1 TO R4 SRI. ABHINAV R, ADV., FOR R5)

¶21

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21/07/2022, PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON BLE COURT IN WP NO.33029/2015 (LB-BMP) AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION NO.33029/2015 (LB-BMP). PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, INCLUDING THE COSTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶24

3 -

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:6252-DB W.A. No.888/2022

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

( PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN )

¶28

Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant as

¶29

well as the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶30

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the only grievance of the appellant as against the judgment is that the learned Single Judge had relegated the parties to their remedies before the civil Court and had made the impugned order subject to the outcome of the civil suits which are pending between the parties. However, the learned Single Judge has stated that the revenue entries in the name of the writ petitioner - respondent No.5 herein, in respect of the sites in the records of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) shall continue to exist till the disposal of the civil suits. It is submitted that there was no finding with regard to the correctness or otherwise of the order impugned and that there was also no interim order during the pendency of the writ petition. It is submitted that pursuant to the

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6252-DB W.A. No.888/2022

¶32

impugned order dated 07.01.2015 passed by respondent No.2, the khata which was entered in the name of the writ petitioner - respondent No.5 herein stood deleted on 10.02.2015. It is submitted that the continuance of the khata in the name of the writ petitioner - respondent No.5 herein was, therefore, not justified in view of the fact that the khata in the name of the writ petitioner - respondent No.5 herein already stood deleted.

¶33

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 would, on the other hand, contend that respondent No.5 has a decree in an injunction suit in her favour as against the appellant herein and that it was in view of the findings of the civil Court in the injunction suit, that the directions to restore the khata till the pending civil dispute is decided, was rendered by the learned Single Judge. It is also stated that the learned Single Judge has specifically directed the trial Court to decide the suits uninfluenced by the khata that stands in the name of the writ petitioner - respondent No.5 herein and that there is absolutely no

¶34

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6252-DB W.A. No.888/2022

¶35

grievance that the appellant can have in view of the said directions. It is further submitted that Annexure-F order has attained finality and that the directions issued by the learned Single Judge was, therefore, perfectly justified.

¶36

Having considered the contentions advanced, we notice that the challenge in the writ petition was against Annexure-K order of the BBMP. The learned Single Judge has not entered any findings with regard to the sustainability or otherwise of the said order. All that has been stated by the learned Single Judge is that since civil disputes are pending between the parties, the order would be subject to outcome of the civil suits. It is further clear that pursuant to the impugned order dated 07.01.2015 passed by respondent No.2, the khata which was entered in the name of the writ petitioner - respondent No.5 herein stood deleted on 10.02.2015. It is also not in dispute that there was no interim order during the pendency of the writ petition.

¶37