Dismissed¶34

Sri Muthu C v. Greater Bangalore Authority (Formerly Bbmp)

Karnataka HC27 Nov 2025WP/34321/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; Justice R. Nataraj; WP No. 34321 of 2025 (LB-BMP); decided 27.11.2025; mandamus under Articles 226 and 227; Greater Bangalore Authority (formerly BBMP); encroachment of narrow 3-4 feet passage between erstwhile slum houses at Lalbagh Siddapura, Bangalore; petitioner's own steps encroaching into passage; obstruction of ingress and egress; neighbour dispute; no direction against respondent No.3; remedy before Civil Court; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Since the petitioner has himself encroached into the passage by putting up steps, he cannot accuse respondent No.3 of encroaching into the passage. ¶32

Sri Muthu C Vs Greater Bangalore Authority… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:49420 WP No. 34321 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 34321 OF 2025 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. MUTHU C AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O. CHENNAPPAJI, RESIDING AT NO. 311, 4^TH CROSS, 6^TH MAIN, LALBAGH SIDDAPURA, BANGALORE - 560011

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.KIRAN R., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

GREATER BANGALORE AUTHORITY (FORMERLY BBMP) REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU- 560002.

¶14

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER HOMBEGOWDANAGARA SUB DIVISION, BENGALURU CENTRAL MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, 7^TH MAIN, 7^TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR 2^ND BLOCK, BENGALURU 560011.

¶15

SRI. MUNIAPPA M AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O. MUNISWAMAPPA, RESIDING AT NO. 625, 4^TH CROSS, 6^TH MAIN,

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:49420 WP No. 34321 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

LALBAGH SIDDAPURA, BANGALORE 560011.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI.OMKAR KAMBI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2; SRI.PRAVEEN.G., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO CONSIDER THE REQUISITION DATED 07.11.2025 BY THE PETITIONER AT ANNEXURE E AND ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.1 to consider the representation dated 07.11.2025 and remove the construction put up by the respondent No.3.

¶25

The petitioner contends that he and his mother are the owners of a property and that the respondent No.3 is their neighbour, who is the owner of site No.625. The petitioner alleged that the respondent No.3 was obstructing his ingress and egress by encroaching into a pathway and had put up a staircase infront of his entrance. The petitioner therefore

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:49420 WP No. 34321 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

submitted a representation to the respondent No.2 on 29.09.2025. However, no action was taken by the respondent No.2, which compelled the petitioner to submit another complaint on 04.10.2025. Despite these representations respondent No.2 did not take any action. The petitioner is therefore before this Court seeking a direction to the respondent No.2 to consider the representation.

¶29

The notice of this petition was issued to the respondent No.3, who has entered appearance and has filed a memo along with some photographs. It appears from these photographs that the house of the petitioner and the house of the respondent No.3 were part of an erstwhile slum. A passage measuring approximately 3 to 4 feet runs between the house of the petitioner and the house of the respondent No.3. It appears that the petitioner has put up three steps by encroaching into the passage, while the respondent No.3 claims that he has put some footings to support the stairs to this first floor and the same does not obstruct the petitioner's ingress and egress into his property. It is not in dispute that the petitioner as well as the respondent No.3 access their respective properties through

¶30

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:49420 WP No. 34321 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

the narrow passage. If the petitioner has himself encroached into the passage by putting up steps, he cannot accuse the respondent No.3 of encroaching into the passage. Therefore, no direction can be issued to the respondent No.3 to consider the representation filed by the petitioner. If the petitioner is aggrieved, he may work out his remedy before the Civil Court in the manner known to law.

¶33