M/S.D K Agencies Vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:45127 WP No. 31867 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 31867 OF 2025 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S. D.K. AGENCIES A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN HAVING OFFICE AT NO.1, 1^ST A CROSS, 24^TH MAIN, J.P. NAGAR, 2^ND PHASE, BANGALORE-560 078 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETRIX SMT. C. SHAMANTHAKAMANI W/O. LATE CAPT. P. RAMAKRISHNA RAO, SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS

¶9

SRI. DINAKAR KUMAR P.V., S/O. LATE CAPT. P. RAMAKRISHNA RAO, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶10

AND

¶11

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SMT. N. PADMA PRASAD, D/O. LATE CAPT. P RAMAKRISHNA RAO, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

(BY SMT. VANI H., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE HUDSON CIRCLE, N R SQUARE BANGALORE-560002 REPRESENTED BY CHIEF COMMISSIONER

¶17

GREATER BANGALORE AUTHORITY (EARLIER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE)

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:45127 WP No. 31867 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

HUDSON CIRCLE, N R SQUARE BANGALORE-560002 REPRESENTED BY CHIEF COMMISSIONER

¶22

CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BANGALORE REVENUE OFFICER (WEST) NOW NAMED AS OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (SOUTH) BBMP COMPLEX, 9^TH CROSS, 9^TH MAIN, 2^ND BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560011 REPRESENTED BY JOINT COMMISSIONER (SOUTH)

¶23

STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶24

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., A PUBLIC SECTOR ENTERPRISES MARKETING DIVISION BANGALORE INDANE DIVISIONAL OFFICE NO.29, INDIAN OIL BHAVAN, P. KALINGA RAO ROAD, MISSION ROAD, BANGALORE-560027 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISION HEAD

¶25

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3; SRI. B. BOPANNA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4;

¶26

SRI. P. PRAMOD, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.5)

¶27

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 TO FORTHWITH RENEW THE LEASE IN RESPECT OF PORTION OF LAND IN SY.NO.40 MEASURING 100' X 100', SITUATED AT MARENAHALLI VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE, PRESENTLY AT PROPERTY NO.1, I A CROSS, J P

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:45127 WP No. 31867 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

NAGAR II PHASE, BANGALORE AS PER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.05.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE F BEFORE THE EXPIRY ON 26.10.2025, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶31

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

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondent Nos.1 to 3 to forthwith renew the lease in respect of the land bearing Sy No.40 measuring 100 x 100 feet situated at Marenahalli Village, Uttaralli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangaloe, presently at property No.1, I A cross, J.P.Nagar II Phase, Bangalore as per the representation dated 15.05.2025.

¶35

(i) Sri. Dinakar Kumar P.V and Smt. N.Padma Prasad, representing the petitioner-firm, contended that their father (Late Captain P.Ramakrishna Rao) was an ex-serviceman and as a tribute to the ex-servicemen who had served the country, the then Prime Minister of India had framed several schemes across the country in cooperation with the respective State Governments, to rehabilitate them. Pursuant thereto, the

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:45127 WP No. 31867 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

State Government evolved a scheme to lease land to war widows and ex-servicemen through the Corporation of the City of Bangalore.

¶39

(ii) It is further contended that in recognition of the services of their father, a licence was granted by the Indian Oil Corporation for distribution of Liquified Petroleum Gas (Domestic and Commercial) under the Scheme of Rehabilitation of Ex-Servicemen, and the said distributorship is renewed from time to time. It is further contended that in order to run the distributorship, late Captain P.Ramakrishna (father of Sri. Dinakar Kumar P.V and Smt. N.Padma Prasad) submitted an application for grant of a long-term lease of land from the respondent - Corporation. The respondent - Corporation, after considering his eligibility, allotted the aforesaid property for a period of 50 years and the terms of the lease contemplated renewal for a further period as may be mutually agreed. They contend that the lease has expired and a request for renewal is under consideration.

¶40

(iii) It is claimed that in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 316 of the Bruhat Bengaluru

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:45127 WP No. 31867 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 (henceforth referred to as 'Act, 2020' for short), respondent No.4 issued a notification bearing No.UDD 280 BBS 2023 dated 01.01.2025 framing the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (Estate Management) Rules, 2024 (henceforth referred to as 'Rules 2024' for short). Rule 6 of the Rules, 2024 provides for lease of immovable properties, and Rule 6(5) of Rules, 2024 provides for a one-time extension of the lease for a maximum period of one more term, not exceeding the period of the last lease, subject to an overall outer limit of 99 years.

¶44

Rule 8 of the Rules, 2024 provide that an existing lessee shall give in writing his option to seek one more extension at any time, but at least two months prior to the expiry of the lease. Accordingly, Sri. Dinakar Kumar P.V and Smt. N.Padma Prasad submitted representation on 15.05.2025 to respondent No.1 prior to the expiry of the lease. However, the respondents have not considered the said representations, and therefore, the petitioner is before this court.

¶45

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that late Captain P.Ramakrishna Rao was granted a distributorship

¶46

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:45127 WP No. 31867 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

of Indane Gas under the Ex-servicemen Rehabilitation Scheme in the year 1971 and is presently catering to about twentytwo thousand customers. It is submitted that if the respondents do not take a decision before the expiry of the lease, it would cause serious inconvenience and hardship to the petitioner. She therefore prays that a direction be issued to the respondents to consider the representation and extend the lease in accordance with law.

¶49

Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that Rules, 2024 has no application, as the same stands repealed by the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024 (henceforth referred to as 'GBG Act, 2024' for short). It is contended that even under the transitional provisions, any rule framed under the erstwhile Act, 2020 or the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 would not be enforceable if it is inconsistent with the provisions of the GBG Act, 2024. He further contends that under Section 134 of GBG Act, 2024 respondent No.1 may extend the lease for a term not exceeding five years with the previous sanction of the Council. He therefore, submits that the petitioner has no right to compel

¶50

7 -

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:45127 WP No. 31867 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

the respondents to renew the lease for the period granted under the earlier lease.

¶54

By reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Section 134(3) of GBG Act, 2024, the respondent No.1 may lease the property of the corporation for a term beyond 05 years or if the property exceeds 5000 sq.ft for any period with the previous sanction of the Government. She therefore contends that there is a provision in law to enable the respondents to extend the lease for a term as was originally agreed under the lease agreement. She contends that whatever may be the case, the representation submitted by proprietors of the petitioner-firm should be placed by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 before respondent No.4 and the respondent No.4 may take a decision regarding extension of lease for such period as may be prescribed.

¶55

The learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.4 submits that if the respondent Nos.1 to 3 makes a request, the same would be considered by respondent No.4 in accordance with law.

¶56

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:45127 WP No. 31867 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

I have considered the submissions of the learned

¶59

counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.4 and learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶60

The lease granted to the petitioner expired on 26.10.2025. The proprietors of petitioner had submitted representation seeking renewal of the lease as provided under the terms of lease agreement. As per the rules that were in force prior to the GBG Act, 2024 coming into force, an extension of lease could be granted for one more term, not exceeding the period of the last lease or the last extended lease, as the case may be, subject to upper limit of 99 years.

¶61

By virtue of the GBG Act, 2024, the BBMP Act, 2020 is repealed. Section 360 of the GBG Act, 2024 deals with transitory provisions, which reads as follows:

¶62

" 360. Transitory Provisions.- Any rule, notification, order or appointment, made or issued under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (Karnataka Act No.14 of 1977), the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020) Karnataka Act No.53 of 2020) and Rules made thereunder or

¶63

9 -

¶64

NC: 2025:KHC:45127 WP No. 31867 of 2025

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

otherwise providing for or relating to any of the matters for the furtherance of which this Act is enacted, before the date of commencement of this Act and in force on the date of commencement of this Act, to the extent they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, shall continue to be in force and effective as if they are made or issued or appointed under the corresponding provisions of this Act unless and until superseded by anything done or any action taken or any rules, notification, order or appointment made under this Act."

¶67

11. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the

¶68

petitioner there is no bar for extending the lease beyond 05 years but such extension should be with the previous approval of State Government. For immediate reference, Section 134 of GBG Act, 2024 is extracted below:

¶69

" 134. Disposal of property by the City Corporation.- (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Commissioner of a City Corporation may dispose of by sale any immovable property of the Corporation with prior approval of the Government or enter into such lease for the utilization of any right over such produce or benefit emerging from such immovable property;

¶70

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:45127 WP No. 31867 of 2025

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

Provided that any sale of an immovable property other than to the Government or Government owned entity, shall be through a public auction, the procedure of which shall be prescribed:

¶73

Provided further that the procedure of sale or transfer of immovable property of the Corporation to the Government or Government owned entities shall be as may be prescribed.

¶74

(2) The Commissioner may lease such immovable property of the City Corporation for a term not exceeding five (5) years with the previous sanction of the Council.

¶75

(3) The Commissioner may lease such immovable property of the City Corporation for a term beyond five (5) years or such property exceeding 5000 sq.ft for any period only with the previous sanction of the Government through Greater Bengaluru Authority.

¶76

(4) The City Corporation shall specify such conditions for sale and lease, which shall be the basis for any approval that may be accorded by the Standing Committee or the Mayor under this Chapter."

¶77

Now that the representation for extension of the lease were submitted to respondent Nos.2 and 3, respondent Nos.1 to 3 shall take appropriate steps to place the said request before respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 shall

¶78

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:45127 WP No. 31867 of 2025

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

thereafter take an appropriate decision regarding the extension of the lease granted to the petitioner. This would meet the ends of justice and equity, as the lease was granted in recognition of the services rendered by father of the proprietors of petitionerfirm to the country. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner is catering to a larger number of LPG customers, and disturbance to its business operations would cause inconvenience to the public at large.

¶81

In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed .

¶82

Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed to place the records of the petitioner before respondent No.4 and respondent No.4 shall consider the request of the petitioner represented by its proprietors in accordance with law, which at any rate, shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a request from respondent Nos.1 to 3. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 shall place the representation submitted by proprietors of the petitioner before respondent No.4 within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶83

Until then, the respondents shall not disturb or cause any obstruction against the petitioner running its

¶84

12 -

¶85

NC: 2025:KHC:45127 WP No. 31867 of 2025

¶86

HC-KAR

¶87

business in the aforementioned leased premises. It is needless to mention that the proprietors of petitioner shall continue to pay lease rentals as agreed in the lease agreement referred supra.

¶88

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶89

HJ

¶90

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0

M/S.D K Agencies v. Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.D K Agencies v. Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Lokeshwari Vs Smt Saraswathamma

Mr Manjunath Vs the Executive Officer

The Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Vs Kirloskar Electric Company Employees Housing Co. Op Society (Regd.)

Mr. Aslam Zackria Sait Vs the Assistant Revenue Officer

Sri.H.R.Nagaraja Setty Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs the Town Panchayath