Plaintiff-appellants appealed a permanent injunction decree objecting to the operative portion granting BWSSB liberty to act under the BWSS Act. On appellants' undertaking that BWSSB may revive defunct pipelines strictly per Sections 38-40 of the BWSS Act, the court deleted that liberty clause and disposed of the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1567 OF 2018 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF ‘SUMUKHA’ NO.12/4, MIRZA ROAD, NAZARBAD MYSURU – 570 010. A2, A3 ARE REPRESENTED BY A1-ASHWINI R PALLEGAR
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. B C SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE)
HC-KAR
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.S.NARAYAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)(VC)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 R/W.ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.08.2018 PASSED IN OS NO.7840/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
NC: 2026:KHC:34221 RFA No. 1567 of 2018
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
This Regular First Appeal is filed by the appellants / plaintiffs calling in question the judgment and decree dated 21.08.2018 passed in O.S No.7840/2015 by the V Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru City, whereby the suit filed for permanent injunction is decreed.
reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.
“defendants are at liberty to take any action in accordance with provisions of law, as contemplated under BWSS Act for removal of any obstructions either in the suit schedule property or any adjacent open space where water pipeline is laid for its supervision,
HC-KAR
maintenance etc., in restoring the free movement for its inspection, repairs, supervision etc.”
that the plaintiffs apprehend that, under the guise of the liberty given to the defendants, the defendants may cause disturbance and hindrance by encroaching on the property of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the learned counsel prays to expunge the said observation made in the operative portion of the order.
the learned counsel for the appellants.
a memo for the disposal of the appeal, which reads as
under:
“Undersigned Advocate for the Appellants submits that the above appeal is filed being aggrieved by the superfluous observations made in the operative portion of the judgment dated 18.08.2018. It is
NC: 2026:KHC:34221 RFA No. 1567 of 2018
HC-KAR
submitted that the Appellants have pleaded that the Respondents have statutory rights to enter any private property to lay water and sewage lines and waterlines while having right to repair, maintain the pipelines under the provisions of Sections 38 to 40 of the BWSS Act.
The Appellants were made to approach the Hon'ble City Civil Court by filing O.S.No. 7840/2015 because the 2nd Respondent herein had interfered with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property belonging to the Appellants by unnecessarily damaging the path in front of their main gate and was threatening to dig up the area under which an old unused and defunct pipeline is said to exist on the northern edge of the plaint Schedule property during December 2014 and September 2015.
During the pendency of the above appeal and upon the directions issued by this Hon'ble Court, the present incumbent of the 2nd Respondent office has filed an affidavit along with sketch showing existence of defunct pipelines on the Northern side of the plaint Schedule property.
Thus, it is clear that there are no live waterlines functioning in the pipes running on the northern side of the plaint Schedule property.
NC: 2026:KHC:34221 RFA No. 1567 of 2018
HC-KAR
The deponent has spoken about the future plans of reviving those defunct pipelines. The Appellants have no objection for the BWSSB to revive or re-lay the defunct pipeline as and when there is a need for the same, by strictly following the statutory provisions of Sections 38 to 40 of BWSS Act.
In view of the above the Appellants pray that the operative portion of the Judgment and Decree may kindly be modified by deleting "the defendants are at liberty to take any action in accordance with provisions of law as contemplated under BWSS Act for removal of any obstructions either in the suit schedule property or any adjacent open space where water pipeline is laid for its supervision, maintenance, etc., in restoring the free movement for its inspection, repairs, supervision etc.," in the interest of justice.”
record. There is no objection by the defendant – BWSSB to the memo filed by the appellants/plaintiffs.
HC-KAR
reviving or re-laying the defunct pipeline, as and when the need arises, provided that it strictly follows the statutory provisions contained in Sections 38 to 40 of the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1964 (for short ‘BWSS Act’).
HC-KAR
ORDER
ii) The portion of the operative order granting such liberty as stated above is hereby deleted.
iii) The copy of the memo shall be read as part and parcel of the order.
Sd/(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE
UN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50
1 issue framed by the court
Should the Trial Court's operative observation granting BWSSB liberty to remove obstructions in the suit property be deleted?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ashwin R Pallegar
Rajesh R Pallegar
Sanjay R Pallegar
The Chairman, Bengaluru Water Supply & Sewerage Board
The Assistant Executive Engineer, BWSSB North East-2 Division
Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
