National Centre for Biological Sciences (Ncbs) v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC12 Feb 2026WP/18837/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rajakaluve; Revised Master Plan (RMP); CDP; RTC; 'B' Kharab; BBMP demolition; compound wall; concrete box drain; storm water drain; Survey No.10/3 Chikkabomassandra Village Yelahanka New Town; notice dated 20.06.2020; 15 guntas; NCBS TIFR Department of Atomic Energy; Bombay Trust Act; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; Sobha Developers Limited WP No.44277 of 2011; MANU/KA/2701/2012; WA No.3803 of 2016; WP No.3728 of 2022 order dated 23.11.2023; writ petition allowed; demolition declared illegal.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; BBMP's demolition of the compound wall and concrete box drain declared illegal; no direction to BBMP to reconstruct, as petitioner's counsel stated the petitioner would itself get the demolished area reconstructed. ¶ORDER(ii)

National Centre for Biological Sciences (Ncbs) Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶ORDER(ii)

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of BBMP in demolishing the compound wall and concrete box drain constructed by the petitioner on its schedule property, on the plea that a Rajakaluve exists although none is shown in the Revised Master Plan/earlier CDP, is illegal and contrary to law. +1 more

¶1(i)

Court's answer

The principle laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench — that if a Rajakaluve has not been shown in the Revised Master Plan, no action could be taken by the BBMP by relying on an RTC — is equally applicable to the present matter, the Court being bound by the Co-ordinate Bench decision in Sobha Developers Limited as confirmed by the Division Bench.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

The respondents could not have taken action in the year 2022 relying upon an RTC when there is no storm water drain or Rajakaluve shown in the RMP, notwithstanding the order passed as far back as 2012.

¶9

Key takeaways

The action of BBMP in demolishing the compound wall and concrete box drain constructed by the petitioner on its property is declared to be illegal; no order for reconstruction by BBMP is required since learned counsel for the petitioner stated the petitioner would itself get the demolished area reconstructed.ratio¶ORDER(ii)

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Suraj Govindaraj J.), 12.02.2026 — Where no Rajakaluve or storm water drain is shown in the Revised Master Plan (RMP), BBMP cannot take demolition action against structures on private land by relying on RTC entries alone. Following the Co-ordinate Bench order dated 23.11.2023 in WP No.3728 of 2022, and the Co-ordinate Bench decision in Sobha Developers Limited vs. Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike & Ors., WP No.44277 of 2011 dated 10.02.2012 (MANU/KA/2701/2012), confirmed by the Division Bench by order dated 13.07.2020 in WA No.3803 of 2016, the Court declared illegal BBMP's demolition of the compound wall and concrete box drain constructed by NCBS (a Government of India undertaking under TIFR/Department of Atomic Energy) on its campus land in Survey No.10/3, Chikkabomassandra Village, Yelahanka New Town, pursuant to a notice dated 20.06.2020 claiming a Rajakaluve over around 15 guntas. Writ petition allowed; no reconstruction direction issued against BBMP since the petitioner undertook to reconstruct the demolished area itself.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:8728 WP No. 18837 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 18837 OF 2022 (LB-BMP)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

NATIONAL CENTRE FOR BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES (NCBS) TATA INSTITITUTE OF FUNDAMENTAL RESEARCH BANGALORE LIFE SCIENCES CLUSTER CAMPUS, GKVK BELLARY ROAD BENGALURU-560 065, REP. BY ITS HEAD ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE SRI G RAVI SHANKAR

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI.UDAYA HOLLA, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VIVEK HOLLA, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶12

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE J C ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001

¶13

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER SWD YELAHANKA ZONE BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE J C ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001

¶15

(BY SRI. JAGADEESWARA N R., ADVOCATE)

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-DECLARE THAT THE ACTION OF THE BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE IN DEMOLISHING THE COMPOUND WALL AND CONCRETE BOX DRAIN CONSTRUCTED BY THE PETITIONER ON THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY BELONGING TO IT IS WHOLLY ILLEGAL, BEING CONTRARY TO LAW.

¶18

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:8728 WP No. 18837 of 2022

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the

¶25

following reliefs;

¶26

i. Declare that the action of the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike in demolishing the compound wall and concrete box drain constructed by the Petitioner on the schedule property belonging to it is wholly illegal, being contrary to law;

¶27

ii. Direct Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike to reconstruct the compound wall as well as part of the concrete box drain which was demolished by it at their own cost forth with;

¶28

iii. Issue a writ or prohibition or any other writ, order or direction directing the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike or its officials, servants or anyone claiming through or under it from in any way trespassing into or demolishing any portion of the existing compound wall as well as buildings put up on the schedule property;

¶29

iv. Grant such other and further reliefs as are just, including the costs of the present petition.

¶30

The petitioner National Center for Biological Sciences (“ NCBS ”) is a part of the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (“ TIFR ”) which is a trust registered under the Bombay Trust Act being autonomous institute being run under the aegis of

¶31

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:8728 WP No. 18837 of 2022

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

the Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India, suffice it to say, that the petitioner is a government of India undertaking. The petitioner has established a campus in the GKVK/UAS campus, over

¶35

land measuring Survey No.10/3, Chikkabomassandra Village, Yelahanka New Town, Bangalore. Wherein laboratory, hostel and housing for faculty and staff have been established.

¶36

The respondents contending that there is a Rajakaluve in a portion of the land in Survey No.10/3 measuring around 15 guntas had issued a notice on 20.06.2020 and thereafter went ahead and demolished the compound wall and drain which had been constructed by the petitioner in its property. The photographs of which have been produced at Annexure-G series. It is challenging said actions on the part of the respondent, that the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:8728 WP No. 18837 of 2022

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

The submission of Sri.Udaya Holla., learned Senior counsel is that;

¶41

4.1. The claim made by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike as regards the existence of a Rajakaluve when it is not shown in the revised master plan and/or the earlier CDP cannot be countenanced in law or fact. When there is no such Rajakaluve which has been shown, the respondents cannot claim that there is any Rajakaluve and without giving opportunity to the petitioner, the respondents could not have in a high-handed manner demolished the compound wall and the drain which had been constructed within the property of the petitioner, contending that the said drain is a Rajakaluve.

¶42

4.2. In this regard, he relies upon the decision of

¶43

this Court dated 23.11.2023 in WP No.3728 of 2022 and other connected matters, by relying

¶44

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:8728 WP No. 18837 of 2022

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

on said decision he submits that the reference to RTC once the property comes within the urban agglomeration and the planning authority jurisdiction would not be cannot be considered and it is only the RMP which would have to be considered to ascertain if there is any property any Rajakaluve within the property.

¶47

4.3. His submission is that this Court having categorically come to a conclusion that if in the RMP there is no demarcation of a Rajakaluve such reference could not be made by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) and no action could be taken by the respondent in that regard. His submission is that the said decision would be equally applicable to the present matter.

¶48

Sri.N.R.Jagadeeswara., learned counsel for the BBMP would however once again rely upon the RTC in respect of Survey No.10/3 to contend that there is a

¶49

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:8728 WP No. 18837 of 2022

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

Rajakaluve which is situated and as such the said Rajakaluve forming ‘B’ Kharab property the petitioner would not have any right thereof and on that basis he submits that the action taken by respondent is proper and correct and he relies on the survey report in terms of the said RTC in that regard.

¶53

Heard Sri.Uaya Holla., learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Sri.N.R. Jagadeeswara., learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2. Perused papers.

¶54

This Court vide its order dated 23.11.2023 in WP No.3728 of 2022 and other connected more particularly para No.11 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference;

¶55

11. Sri.K.G. Raghavan, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner by relying upon the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shobha Developers Limited vs. Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and others MANU/KA/2701/2012 which has been confirmed by order of Division Bench in the case of Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and another vs. Shobha Developers Ltd., and another submits that if a 'Rajakaluve' has not been shown in the Revised Master Plan, no action could be taken by the BBMP. The said contention having already been answered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court, this Court is bound to apply the same to the present facts.

¶56

¶57

NC: 2026:KHC:8728 WP No. 18837 of 2022

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

By referring to the earlier decision of the Co-ordinate bench of this Court, this Court had categorically held that if a Rajakaluve has not been shown in the Revised Master Plan, no action could be taken by the BBMP by relying on an RTC. The said decision in my considerate opinion would be equally applicable to the present matter, since I am bound by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in Sobha Developers Limited vs. Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike & Ors., in WP No.44277 of 2011 dated 10.02.2012 which has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court by order dated 13.07.2020 in WA No.3803 of 2016.

¶60

Hence, the respondents even after such an order having been passed way back in the year 2012 could not have in the year 2022 taken action relying upon an RTC when there is no storm water drain or

¶61

¶62

NC: 2026:KHC:8728 WP No. 18837 of 2022

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

Rajakaluve shown in the RMP. As such I pass the following;

¶65

ORDER

¶66

i. The writ petition allowed .

¶67

ii. The action of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) demolishing the compound wall and concrete box drain constructed by the petitioner on its property is declared to be illegal. Since Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner itself would get the demolished area reconstructed, no order is required to be passed in that regard.

¶68

SD/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶69

¶70

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 23

National Centre for Biological Sciences (Ncbs) v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Centre for Biological Sciences (Ncbs) v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Giriraja M R Vs Deputy Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Sri. Kikkeri Krishnamurthy Vs the Commissioner

Smt. G Nitya Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Mrs.Ashwini v Vs the Commissioner

Sri.Srinivasa, Vs the Chief Commissioner and Appellate Tribunal

Smt a P Vilasalathika Vs State of Karnataka