Smt Pushpalatha Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

SMT. PUSHPALATHA, W/O SRI K. KATHROY, D/O LATE KC JAYALAKSHMI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.3/1, VAIBHAV HOTEL BUILDING, BESIDE GOVT. SCHOOL, SARJAPURA ROAD, KAIKONDRAHALLI VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 035.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

(BY MS. BHARMAL SHIRIN SHABBIRBHAI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MENTO ISAC, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, HAVING OFFICE AT: N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER.

¶16

ZONAL COMMISSIONER, MAHADEVAPURA ZONE-BBMP, OFFICE AT: RHB COLONY, WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 048.

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:18079-DB WA No. 1463 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

JOINT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING (NORTH), HAVING OFFICE AT: BBMP OFFICE, N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURUE - 560 002.

¶21

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING, (MAHADEVAPURA) - BBMP, OFFICE AT RHB COLONY, WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 048.

¶22

SRI. A. RAMAPPA, S/O LATE SRI. ANJANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

¶23

SRI. A. LAKSHMAPPA, S/O LATE SRI. ANJANAPPA. AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

¶24

SMT. V. SHYLAJA, W/O A. RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

¶25

SMT. L. ROOPA, W/O A. LAKSHMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESPON NO.5 TO 8 ARE RESIDING AT: NO. 24, SUNNY BROOKS, SARJAPURA MAIN ROAD, NEAR WIPRO CORPORATE OFFICE, DODDAKANNALLI, CARMELARAM, BENGALURU - 560 035.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR RAIKOTE., ADVOCATE FOR R1-R4, MS. SUMAN .V KATHARE, ADVOCATE FOR C/R5 - R8)

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:18079-DB WA No. 1463 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:16.07.2025 PASSED IN WP No.14921/2025 BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION BEARING WP No.14921/2025 AND ETC.

¶31

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶33

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶34

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶35

The present intra Court appeal has been filed impugning order dated 16.07.2025 in WP.No.14921/2015 passed by the writ Court.

¶36

The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the writ Court for the sake of convenience.

¶37

The petitioner has filed writ petition for the

¶38

following reliefs:

¶39

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:18079-DB WA No. 1463 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

"(i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction quashing the Building Licence along with approved plan bearing Licence Sl. No.BBMP/CC/12794/24-25 dated 02.01.2025 issued by respondent No.4, produced as Annexure-X;

¶42

(ii) Issue a writ in the nature of prohibition or any other appropriate order or direction against Respondent Nos.5 to 8 not to put up any further construction on property with Khata No.2824, in Sy. Nos.40, 41 and 30 in BBMP Ward No.150, Serenity Layout, Kaikondrahalli Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru;

¶43

(iii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction against Respondent No.2 to pass orders under Section 248(3), BBMP Act, 2020 for demolition of the illegal construction on property with Khata No.2824, in Sy. Nos.40, 41 and 30 in BBMP Ward No.150, Serenity Layout, Kaikondrahalli Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru;

¶44

(iv) Grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case."

¶45

The dispute is regarding the ownership of the 6 guntas of land situated at Survey No.41 of Kailondrahalli Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk. The parties are already before the Civil Court in OS.No.2023/2011.

¶46

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:18079-DB WA No. 1463 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

The other suit has been filed by respondent No.5 in OS.No.7425/2022 for specific performance, the suits are still pending before the Civil Court. Until and unless the question of ownership is crystallised by the judgment and decree of the competent Court, the petitioner cannot seek removal or demolition of the alleged illegal construction by filing the Writ Petition before this Court.

¶49

The learned single Judge at paragraph No.10 of the impugned judgment has noted that in view of the report placed by the BBMP, the construction undertaken by respondent Nos.5 to 8 on disputed site was is in a strict compliance with the approved building plan and building licence issued by the Planning Authority. Therefore, question of invoking powers under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020 would not arise. We are fully in agreement with the observation of the learned Single Judge.

¶50