Dismissed¶54

Sri Gangahanumaiah v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC28 Jan 2025WP/28789/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

BBMP encroachment removal; BMTF Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force; obstruction of public road; 4th Cross K.K. Road T. Dasarahalli Bengaluru; spot inspection sketch five portions; gift deed 20.10.2003; petitioner purchase 2006; mandamus to consider representation 03.10.2023; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; writ petition dismissed; N S Sanjay Gowda; Karnataka High Court 2025.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was dismissed and no mandamus was issued. ¶54

Sri Gangahanumaiah Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition was dismissed and no mandamus was issued.

¶54

Issue for consideration

Whether the portion marked as Item No.2 in the BBMP spot-inspection sketch is land earmarked for the public road, such that the constructions of respondent No.5 thereon are illegal encroachments obstructing free movement on 4th Cross, K.K. Road, T. Dasarahalli, and must be removed. +1 more

¶47

Court's answer

Items No.1 and 2 of the sketch, taken together, yield a length of 85 feet which tallies with the measurements in the gift deed dated 20.10.2003; consequently, the petitioner's contention that there is encroachment by respondent No.5 cannot be accepted.

¶52

Ratio / Principle

The gift deed in favour of respondent No.5 was executed much prior to the petitioner's purchase of his property in 2006; the entire area belongs to the family of respondent No.5 and the petitioner claims title from the brothers of respondent No.5.

¶53

Key takeaways

Since the petitioner's entitlement extends to the portion shown as Items No.1 and 2, together comprising a length of 85 feet, the argument that Item No.2 is earmarked for road cannot be accepted; the petition does not deserve entertainment and is dismissed.ratio¶54
In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.obiter¶58

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 28789 of 2023 (LB-BMP) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India; High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (N S Sanjay Gowda, J.); decided 28.01.2025. The petitioner sought a mandamus directing the BBMP Commissioner and the BMTF to consider his representation dated 03.10.2023 and to remove 'illegal constructions' allegedly obstructing free movement on 4th Cross, K.K. Road, T. Dasarahalli, Bangalore City, attributed to respondents No.5 and 6. Following an interim order dated 21.12.2023, BBMP filed a compliance report dated 15.01.2025 with a sketch demarcating five portions; Items No.1 and 2 together measure 85 feet east-west, tallying with the gift deed dated 20.10.2003 in favour of respondent No.5, executed well before the petitioner's purchase of his property in 2006, the petitioner claiming title from the brothers of respondent No.5. Held: the contention that Item No.2 is land earmarked for road cannot be accepted and the plea of encroachment fails; the petition was dismissed and pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:3728 WP No. 28789 of 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 28789 OF 2023 (LB-BMP)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI GANGAHANUMAIAH S/O LATE ANJANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT NO.1145/2, 8TH CROSS, NELA MAHESHWARAMMA TEMPLE ROAD, MAHESWARI NAGARA, T. DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU-560057

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. KESHAVA MURTHY B., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

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

¶16

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER T. DASARAHALLI ZONE, BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, HESARAGHATTA MAIN ROAD, BAGALAGUNTE VILLAGE, T. DASARAHALLI, BANGALORE-560057

¶17

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER T. DASARAHALLI ZONE, BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, HESARAGHATTA MAIN ROAD,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:3728 WP No. 28789 of 2023

¶20

BAGALAGUNTE VILLAGE, T. DASARAHALLI, BANGALORE-560057

¶21

MR. THAMMANNA S/O LATE CHIKKATHIMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT NO.217, K K ROAD, OPP STANDARD ENGLISH SCHOOL, T DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU-560057

¶22

SMT. PUTTAMMA W/O SRI. THAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NO.217, K K ROAD, OPP STANDARD ENGLISH SCHOOL, T. DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU-560057

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-4; SRI. RAHUL.P., ADVOCATE FOR R-5 & R-6)

¶25

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TOB DIRECT THE R1, COMMISSIONER, BBMP, BANGALORE AND DTHE R2, ASST. DIRECTOR OF GENERAL POLICE, BMTF, TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DTD 03.0.2023 AND THE R3, JOINT COMMISSIONER, T DASARAHALLI ZONE, BBMP, BANGALORE TO TAKE ACTION IN REMOVING THE ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTIONS AND OBSTRUCTS FOR FREE MOVEMENT IN THE PUBLIC ROAD I.E., 4TH CROSS, K K ROAD, T DASARAHALLI, BANGALORE CITY, MOVEMENT FORTHWITH, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A1 TO A3.

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:3728 WP No. 28789 of 2023

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

The prayer in this Writ Petition is for issuance of a mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the representation dated 03.10.2023 and to take action to remove the illegal constructions which obstructs the free movement in the public road i.e., 4^th Cross, K.K. Road, T. Dasarahalli, Bangalore City.

¶32

This Court, after issuing notice to the respondents had passed an interim order on 21.12.2023 directing the BBMP to carry out a spot inspection and place on record the construction put up by the petitioner and respondents No.5 and 6 and also measurements along with photographs of the properties.

¶33

Pursuant to the said order, a spot inspection has been conducted and a compliance report dated 15.01.2025 is filed enclosing a sketch indicating the properties of the petitioner and respondent No.5.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:3728 WP No. 28789 of 2023

¶36

The sketch that is produced has been demarcated into five portions.

¶37

Item No.1 is the structure measuring east to west 58ft. and north to south 76ft.

¶38

Item No.2 is stated to be the remaining land of respondent No.5 which measures 58ft. east to west and 9ft. north to south.

¶39

Item No.5 is indicated as space which measures 5’.6” on the eastern side (north-south) and 3’ in the middle north to south.

¶40

To the south of this portion is Item No.3 which is the petitioner’s property.

¶41

The portion marked as 4 is the set back area abutting Item No.1.

¶42

Learned counsel for respondent No.5 points out that

¶43

respondent No.5 was gifted this property on 20.10.2003 and as per this gift deed the property

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3728 WP No. 28789 of 2023

¶45

measuring 60ft. east to west and 85ft. north to south were gifted to him, in which there was already an existing RCC structure.

¶46

He points out that if this schedule is compared to the sketch, it is clear that Item No.1 and 2 in the sketch together would constitute the length of the property which would be 85’ and which would be tallying with the measurements in the gift deed. He, therefore, points out that there can be no encroachment by respondent No.5 as contended by the petitioner.

¶47

Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the portion marked as Item No.2 in the sketch was the property earmarked for the road and in the entire stretch illegal constructions have been put up which are therefore required to be removed.

¶48

In my view, this argument of the petitioner cannot be accepted because if Items No.1 and 2 indicate that if the two pieces of land are added together, it

¶49

*Page No.5 retyped and replaced vide Chamber order dated:14.02.2025.

¶50

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:3728 WP No. 28789 of 2023

¶52

would indicate that the length of the property would be 85’ which would be in consonance with the length as indicated in the gift dated 20.10.2003.

¶53

It is to be noticed here that this gift deed was executed in favour of respondent No.5 much prior to the petitioner purchasing his property, which was in the year 2006. It is also not in dispute that the entire area belongs to the family of respondent No.5 and the petitioner is also claiming title from the brothers of respondent No.5.

¶54

In my view, since the extent of the property indicates that the petitioner is entitled to a portion shown as Item No.1 and 2 which together comprises a property having a length of 85’, the argument that the portion identified as Item No.2 is earmarked for road cannot be accepted. The petition, therefore, does not deserve entertainment and the same is accordingly dismissed .

¶55

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC:3728 WP No. 28789 of 2023

¶57