Sri D Prakash Vs the Chief Commissioner

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:49634 WP No. 34932 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 34932 OF 2025 (LB-BMP)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI.D.PRAKASH S/O.N.DASAPPA R/AT NO.91, CHAREES COMPHELD ROAD BANGALORE-560005 REP BY HIS GPA HOLDER SRI.ABDUL SALEEM AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT NO.08, KEERTHI RESIDENCY RAMDEV GARDEN, KACHARKANAHALLI BANGALORE-560084.

¶8

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

NASSER UDDIN S/O.ABDUL SALEEM AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT NO. 08, KEERTHI RESIDENCY RAMDEV GARDEN, KACHARKANAHALLI BANGALORE-560084

¶10

(BY SRI.SHRAVAN S.LOKRE, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGAR PALIKE NOW GREATER BANGALORE AUTHORITY BBMP HEAD OFFICE, BANGALORE 560002

¶14

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER NOW BBMP NORTH ZONE BANGALORE 560092

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:49634 WP No. 34932 of 2025

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGAR PALIKE NOW GBA (NORTH SUB-DIVISION) BANGALORE 560001

¶18

THE JOINT DIRECTOR (TOWN PLANNING) BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGAR PALIKE NOW GBA, BBMP HEAD OFFICE BANGALORE 560001

¶19

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (TOWN PLANNING) BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGAR PALIKE NOW GBA 563132

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. B.S.KARTHIKEYAN, ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 FO THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE ISSUANCE OF THE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE 2^ND RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENTS FOR ISSUANCE OF E-KHATA AND SANCTIONED PLAN AS PER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30.10.2025 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioners have sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.2 to consider their representation for issuance of E-Khatha and sanction a plan by

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:49634 WP No. 34932 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

considering the representation dated 30.10.2025. They have also sought for a direction to the respondents to assess the schedule property and sanctioned a plan for reconstruction of the building over the property mentioned in the schedule.

¶29

(i) The petitioner No.1 claims that he is the owner of the site No.2, assessment No.62, khatha No.62/310/2 of Kacharkanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, formed in survey No.62 of Kacharkanahalli Village, having purchased it in terms of a sale deed dated 09.02.1972, which was later rectified on 22.12.1977. He claims that he had executed a power of attorney on 02.04.1993 in favour of Mr. Abdul Saleem who in turn executed a gift deed dated 19.02.2021 in favour of petitioner No.2. The petitioner No.1 claims that the aforesaid property lay within the limits of the erstwhile Kacharkanahalli Village Panchayath and his name was entered in Form 9 and 10 and after it was included within the limits of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), he requested to enter his name in the property register.

¶30

(ii) The petitioners claim that they have been paying property taxes to the respondents and are in possession and

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:49634 WP No. 34932 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

enjoyment of the property. The petitioner No.1 submitted a representation to the Bangalore Development Authority (henceforth referred to as 'BDA') on 26.09.2024 seeking regularization of his unauthorized occupation under Section 38D of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (henceforth referred to as 'the BDA Act, 1976').

¶34

(iii) Since the said representation was not considered, the petitioner No.1 approached this Court in WP No.28339/2024 and this Court in terms of an order dated 24.10.2024 disposed of the writ petition, directing the BDA Authorities to consider the representation. The petitioners claim that following the above direction, " The officials of the BDA resolved that no coercive steps will be taken against the petitioners and the directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka will be duly obeyed and the representation will be considered and also decided that no appeal will be required to be filed and instructed its officers that it is the ALAO and Executive Engineer North to consider the representation for regularization of the occupation of the petitioners ." It is further stated, " Thereafter, the Commissioner BDA has approved the

¶35

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:49634 WP No. 34932 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

said resolution that was passed by the BDA Authorities." A copy of the Note Sheet of the BDA dated 10.12.2024 is produced as Annexure-L.

¶38

(Underlining by Court)

¶39

The petitioners claim that based upon the direction issued by this Court in WP No.28339/2024 and the resolution passed by the BDA, the petitioners approached the respondent authorities for issuance of E-Khatha in their respective names. The petitioner No.1 represented that he possessed a Khatha that was issued by the then Village Panchayath and that he had paid the property tax upto date. The petitioners allege that the representation dated 30.10.2025 was not considered and therefore they are before this Court seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

¶40

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are in possession of the property for over the prescriptive period and therefore, the BDA is bound to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization under Section 38D of the BDA Act, 1976. He also contends that since the petitioners are paying the property tax from the day the

¶41

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:49634 WP No. 34932 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

area was included within the limits of the BBMP, the petitioners are entitled to get their names entered in the E-Khatha. He therefore prays that a direction be issued to the respondents to consider the representation and record the names of the petitioners in the E-Khatha and also sanction a plan for putting up construction.

¶44

The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand, contended that the petitioners have approached BDA under Section 38D of the BDA Act, 1976, for seeking regularization of their occupation. He contends that the petitioners had approached this Court in WP No.28339/2024 for a direction to consider the request for regularization and this Court in terms of an order dated 24.10.2024 directed the representation of the petitioners to be considered. He contends that till date there is no order under Section 38D of the BDA Act, 1976, by the authority. Therefore, the possession of the petitioners still continues to be unauthorized. He therefore submits that the petitioners have no locus standi to compel the respondents to issue the E-Khatha.

¶45

7 -

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:49634 WP No. 34932 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶49

The petitioners have categorically mentioned in the writ petition that they had requested the BDA for regularization of their occupation as provided under Section 38D of the BDA Act, 1976. They have also stated that they have approached this Court seeking for a direction to the BDA to consider the representation, following which an order was passed by this Court directing the BDA to consider the representation. The BDA in its Note Sheet dated 10.12.2024, passed the following order:

¶50

"Date: 10/12/2024 WP No.28339/2024

¶51

Noted previous paras. The petitioner Sri.D.Prakash filed WP No.28339/2024 praying to direct respondent no.2-authority to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 26/09/2024 given for the benefit under Section 38D of the BDA Act 1976 together with other reliefs.

¶52

After hearing both the parties the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka disposed of the writ petition directing the 2^nd respondent to consider the representation dated 26/09/2024 within an outer limit of 3 months from the

¶53

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:49634 WP No. 34932 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

date of receipt of this order and also directed respondent no.2 & 3 no coercive steps the taken against the petitioner. Therefore the authority bound to consider the representation of the petitioner within a stipulated time fixed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in order to avoid future consequence.

¶56

Hence the order is not prejudicial of the interest of the authority and no appeal is required to be filed. If the representation given by the petitioner be instructed to be considered by the ALAO & EE(N) to avoid future consequence."

¶57

Contrary to what is stated on the note sheet, the petitioners have falsely claimed that the Commissioner of BDA has approved the resolution passed by the authorities of BDA.

¶58

It therefore appears that, till date, there is no order under Section 38D of the BDA Act, 1976, in favour of the petitioners. So long as the possession of the petitioners is not authorized, the petitioners cannot compel the respondents to register their names in the property register. Therefore, no direction can be issued to the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioners and record the names of the petitioners in the property register maintained by the respondents. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶59

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:49634 WP No. 34932 of 2025

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

Before parting from the case, it is relevant to note that in the writ petition a deliberate attempt was made to mislead the Court by pleading that " On 10.12.2024, the BDA had resolved that no coercive steps would be taken against the petitioners and the directions issued by this Court would be duly obeyed and the representation would be considered. It is also stated that the BDA had instructed its officers, i.e., the ALAO and the Executive Engineer North to consider the representation for regularization of the occupation of the petitioners. It is also claimed that thereafter the commissioner BDA had approved the said resolution that was passed by the BDA Authorities. " A perusal of the Note Sheet as extracted in paragraph No.7 shows that there was no such resolution by the BDA that coercive steps should not be taken against the petitioners and there was no approval by the commissioner BDA approving the Note Sheet dated 10.12.2024. When this was brought to the notice of the learned counsel for the petitioners, he persisted and tried to justify the assertion made in the writ petition.

¶62

10 -

¶63

NC: 2025:KHC:49634 WP No. 34932 of 2025

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

Later, the learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo apologizing for the mistake committed. Therefore, this Court does not propose to take the issue any further. However, in order to rein in the learned counsel and to ensure that he does not indulge in similar such mistakes, he is directed to pay cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) payable to Sri Jayadeva Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences and Research within one week from today.

¶66

List this petition for compliance of payment of cost on 16.12.2025.

¶67

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶68

BKN-para Nos.1 to 9 sma-para No.10 List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37

Sri D Prakash v. the Chief Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri D Prakash v. the Chief Commissioner

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. Chikkahanumakka Vs the Municipal Commissioner

Sri Muthu C Vs Greater Bangalore Authority (Formerly Bbmp)

Bovi Naukarara Samskruthika Sangha (R) Vs State of Karnataka

Sri T Thimme Gowda Vs State of Karnataka

Smt.Savithri K Vs the Chief Commissioner

Sri Balaji B Thimmegowda Vs Mrs v Rosaline