Disposed

Smt Shanthamma v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC24 Nov 2025WP/13456/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition seeking mandamus to remove an allegedly illegal construction obstructing a public road in Nandini Layout, Bengaluru. A court-directed survey found a 14 feet passage but no evidence it was a public road or part of an authorized layout vested in the Corporation; the court declined to adjudicate disputed facts and directed the petitioner to the Civil Court.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt Shanthamma Vs the Commissioner — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:48490 WP No. 13456 of 2018

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 13456 OF 2018 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. SHANTHAMMA W/O MR. HUCHAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/A NO.10/35, 9^TH CROSS PARIMALA NAGAR, NANDINI LAYOUT BANGALORE-560096

¶9

&PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. RAJESH MAHALE, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR

¶11

SRI. D.S.JAYARAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE-560002.

¶15

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (WEST) BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE SAMPIGE ROAD, MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE-560003

¶16

THE ASST. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TASK FORCE N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE-560002.

¶17

MRS. JAYALAKSHMI SINCE DEAD BY HER LR

¶18

4(a) MRS. NAGARATHNAMMA W/O MR. SHIVANNA,

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:48490 WP No. 13456 of 2018

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.162, 5^TH MAIN ROAD, II CROSS, I STAGE, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BANGALORE-560 086.

¶22

AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 11.10.2023

¶23

MR. M.R. ANANTH KUMAR S/O SRI. RANGASWAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO.4/2, 9^TH CROSS, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, KANTEERVA TENT ROAD, NANDINI LAYOUT, 4^TH BLOCK, BANGALORE-560096.

¶24

AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 01.04.2024

¶25

&RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3; SRI. T. SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4(a); SRI. P. DHANANJAYA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.5)

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESP. NO.1 COMMISSIONER, BBMP, BANGALORE AND THE RESP. NO.3, ASST. DIRECTOR OF GENERAL POLICE, BMTF, TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28.08.2017 AND TO TAKE ACTION IN REMOVING THE ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTIONS MADE IN THE PUBLIC ROAD I.E., 9TH CROSS, PARIMALANAGAR (KANTIRAVANAGAR) BANGALORE CITY, FORTHWITH, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A1 TO A3.

¶28

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:48490 WP No. 13456 of 2018

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent Nos.1 and 3 to consider the representation dated 28.08.2017 and to take action to remove illegal construction made in the public road i.e., 9^th Cross, Parimalanagar (Kantiravanagar), Bengaluru City.

¶34

The petitioner claims that she and her family members are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property bearing No.10, situate at 9^th Cross, Parimalanagar, Nandini Layout, Bengaluru, having purchased it in terms of a sale deed dated 17.05.2001. She alleges that the respondent No.4 (since deceased) without authority of law and with an ulterior motive to grab the valuable property had created and fabricated documents and had constructed a temporary A.C. sheet roofed shed over a public road i.e., 9^th Cross, Parimalanagar, Nandini Layout, Bengaluru, thereby obstructing the ingress and egress to the residents of the locality. The petitioner as well as other residents had made repeated representations to respondent Nos.1 to 3. However,

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:48490 WP No. 13456 of 2018

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

respondent Nos.1 to 3 did not take any action. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for a direction to the respondent Nos.1 and 3 to consider the representation and take suitable action to remove the illegal construction made in the public road i.e., 9^th Cross, Parimalanagar (Kantiravanagar), Bengaluru City.

¶38

The learned Senior counsel, Mr. Rajesh Mahale, for the petitioner invited the attention of the Court to a report of the survey conducted by the respondent No.2 pursuant to a direction issued by this Court on 07.09.2023. He submits that the report submitted by the respondent No.2 indicates that the respondent No.4 (since deceased) is squatting on the road and therefore, a direction deserves to be issued to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to remove the construction put up by the respondent No.4 (since deceased).

¶39

This petition was opposed by the respondent No.4 (since deceased), who denies that she has constructed a building over 9^th Cross, Parimalanagar (Kantiravanagar), Bengaluru City. She contended that 9^th Cross of Parimalanagar (Kantiravanagar) runs in the east-west direction, while her

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:48490 WP No. 13456 of 2018

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

property is situated after the drain on the northern side of the road. She alleges that the petitioner has constructed a building on the drain formed on the southern side of the road.

¶43

During the pendency of this writ petition, respondent No.4 died and her legal representative was brought on record.

¶44

The learned counsel for respondent No.4(a) has reiterated the above contentions and contended that the respondent No.4 (since deceased) has not constructed her building on 9^th Cross, Parimalanagar (Kantiravanagar), Bengaluru City.

¶45

As rightly contended by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, this Court in terms of an order dated 07.09.2023, had directed the respondent No.2 to conduct an inspection to verify whether the petitioner or respondent No.4 had encroached into the public road. Respondent No.2 after visiting the spot, has drawn up a sketch which shows that between the property of the petitioner and the property of the respondent No.4, there is 14 feet passage that leads from the 9^th cross road to another road on the western side. There is

¶46

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:48490 WP No. 13456 of 2018

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

nothing on record to show that the road claimed by the petitioner is treated as a "public road". There is also nothing on record to show that the property of the petitioner and the deceased respondent No.4 are part of an authorized layout and there is nothing to show that any portion was relinquishment or had vested in the Municipal Corporation. Therefore, the petitioner cannot seek for a direction to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to take action against the construction put up by the respondent No.4 (since deceased) as that would involve adjudication of disputed questions of fact. Therefore, appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to approach the Civil Court by filing a representative suit.

¶49

8. The writ petition stands disposed off on the above

¶50

terms.

¶51

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶52

PMR

¶53

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60

Smt Shanthamma v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt Shanthamma v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nanjundappa Vs the State Ofkarnataka

Sri. Farooq Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Mr. Jai Kumar. R Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Rafiq Khan Vs the Commissioner

Rehamath-Ulla-Asadi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Byre Gowda Vs B S Puttaraju