Shri B G Venkatesh Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Shri B G Venkatesh Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None of the prayed reliefs (certiorari quashing Rev.Appl.No.174/2022, or costs) was granted; the petition was disposed off with the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal directed to expedite disposal of Rev.Apl.No.174/2022 and counsels permitted to file synopses, dates and events, lists of authorities and synopsis of submissions; I.A.No.1/2024 also stands disposed.

Issue for consideration

Whether Respondent No.5's application for impleading in Rev.Appl.No.174/2022 was rightly allowed, or whether Respondent No.5 is a 'busybody' unconcerned with the lis between the petitioners and BBMP whose impleading application ought to have been dismissed. +1 more

Court's answer

Respondent No.5, being a neighbour of the property, would enjoy the benefit if the property had been designated for a park, and his interest would be adversely affected if it were put to any other use; hence it is in the interest of justice to permit Respondent No.5 to remain on record to place such documents as may be necessary for the Appellate Tribunal to consider the revenue appeal in Rev.Apl.No.174/2022.

Ratio / Principle

Whether the property has been acquired or has been reserved for a park or not would have to be decided in Rev.Apl.No.174/2022 itself, where the BBMP is asserting its rights over the property and negating the rights of the petitioners; this Court does not decide that question in the writ petition.

Key takeaways

The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal is directed to dispose of the revenue appeal in Rev.Apl.No.174/2022 as expeditiously as possible, with all counsels to cooperate, and all respective counsels are permitted to file their synopsis, dates and events, lists of authorities and synopsis of submissions on the next date of listing.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (LB-BMP) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the legal representatives of the late Sri B.G. Venkatesh, assailing the proceedings in Rev.Appl.No.174/2022 (Annexure-S), a revenue appeal initiated by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike under Section 178A of the K.M.C. Act / the present BBMP Act, 2020, and specifically objecting to the impleading of Respondent No.5 — a neighbouring resident who claimed the subject property was acquired way back in 1949 and designated for a park. The petitioners urged that Respondent No.5 was a busybody. The Court held that, as a neighbour, Respondent No.5 would enjoy the benefit if the property were used as a designated park and his interest would be adversely affected by any other use, so permitting him to remain on record to place documents before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal was in the interest of justice; the questions of acquisition and park reservation were expressly left to be decided in the appeal itself, where BBMP asserts its rights against the petitioners. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal was directed to dispose of Rev.Apl.No.174/2022 expeditiously, with liberty to all counsels to file synopses, dates and events, lists of authorities and synopsis of submissions. Petition stood disposed off; I.A.No.1/2024 disposed.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:10080 WP No. 27877 of 2023

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 27877 OF 2023 (LB-BMP)

BETWEEN:

SRI B.G.VENKATESH S/O. M.P.GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/AT NO.9, 'A' RACE COURSE ROAD MADHAVANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 001.

SINCE DECEASED BY LRS.

SMT.BALAMANI, AGED ABOUT 66 YARS, W/O LATE B.G.VENKATESH NO.9/A, RACE COURSE ROAD MADHAVANAGAR, BENGALURU NORTH BENGALURU-560 021.

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SRI.B.V.VIKRAM AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O LATE B.G.VENKATESH NO.9/A, RACE COURSE ROAD, MADHAVANAGAR, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU-560 021.

SRI.B.V.ASHOK AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O LATE B.G.VENKATESH NO.9/A, RACE COURSE ROAD, MADHAVANAGAR, BENGALURU NORTH,

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:10080 WP No. 27877 of 2023

HC-KAR

BENGALURU-560 021.

SMT.JYOTHI SRIDHAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, D/O. LATE B.G.VENKATESH FLAT NO.103, MONTREAL MANOR NO.10/3, SHOPPING STREET, KUMARA PARK WEST SESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU-560 020.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI V. B. SHIVA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE CORPORATION OFFICES N.R SQUARE, J. C. ROAD BENGALURU - 560 002.

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE CORPORATION OFFICES N.R.SQUARE, J.C.ROAD BENGALURU - 560 002.

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE OFFICER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE RAJAMAHAL EXTENSION WARD NO.64 BENGALURU - 560 003.

THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE WARD NO.28, MALLESHWARAM SUB-DIVISION

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:10080 WP No. 27877 of 2023

HC-KAR

BENGALURU - 560 003.

SRI H.SHIVARAM AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS S/O. HUCHAIAH H. R/AT NO.31, 9^TH CROSS SWIMMING POOL EXTENSION MALLESWHARAM BENGALURU - 560 003.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI SANJEEV B.L., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; SRI MADHUKAR DESHPANDE., ADVOCATE FOR R5)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN REV.APPL.NO.174/22 IS AT ANNEXURE-S AND INITIATED BY BBMP AUTHORITIES UNDER SECTION 178A OF THE K.M.C. ACT OR UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE PRESENT B.B.M.P. ACT, AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners are before this Court, seeking for the

following reliefs:

"i. For a Writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ or order quashing the proceedings in REV.APL.No.174/2022 is at Annexure-S initiated by BBMP Authorities under Section 178A of the KMC Act or under the provisions of the present BBMP Act, 2020;

ii. Cost of the Petition."

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:10080 WP No. 27877 of 2023

HC-KAR

The grievance of the petitioners are that in a revenue appeal filed by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagars Palake (for short, 'BBMP') an application for impleading filed by respondent No.5 has been allowed, which ought not to have been so allowed. Respondent No.5 is not concerned with the lis between the petitioners and the respondents in the BBMP. Respondent No.5 being a busybody, the application ought to have been dismissed.

Sri V.B.Shiva Kumar, learned counsel for petitioners submits that the action which has been taken against the petitioners is a belated action. In that particular matter, respondent No.5 as an impleading applicant cannot be permitted to come record.

Sri Madhukar Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent No.5 would submit that he is not a busybody. He is a neighbour of the property concerned of the said property, he alleges has been acquired way back in the year 1949 and designated

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:10080 WP No. 27877 of 2023

HC-KAR

for the purpose of a park and as such if the said property is used for any other purpose other than a park, the interest of the impleading applicant would be adversely affected.

In this regard, Sri V.B.Shiva Kumar, learned counsel for petitioners submits that there is no such reservation made for the park and as such, respondent No.5 is still a busybody who is trying to interfere with the rights of the petitioners.

Having heard the counsels, whether the property has been acquired or whether it has been reserved for a park or not, would have to be decided in Rev.Apl. No.174/2022, where the BBMP is asserting its rights over the property and negating the rights of the petitioners.

While doing so, respondent No.5 being a neighbour of the property, if at all the said property had been designated for the purpose of a park, the benefit of the same would be enjoyed by respondent No.5.

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:10080 WP No. 27877 of 2023

HC-KAR

If the property is put to any other use, the interest of respondent No.5 would be adversely affected. One other allegation made by Sri Madhukar Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent No.5, is that BBMP is not taking any active interest or taking any action against alleged violations by the petitioners. Assuming that to be so, it would be in the interest of justice that respondent No.5 be permitted to be on record to place such documents as may be necessary for the Appellate Tribunal to consider the revenue appeal in Rev.Apl.No. 174/2022.

The submission of all the counsels is that the pleadings are completed and that matter could be taken up for hearing, as regards which all the counsels will cooperate with the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal for expeditious disposal.

Placing their submissions on record, the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal is directed to dispose of the

7 -

NC: 2026:KHC:10080 WP No. 27877 of 2023

HC-KAR

revenue appeal in Rev.Apl.No.174/2022 as

expeditiously as possible.

All the respective counsels are permitted to file their respective synopsis, dates and events, lists of authorities and synopsis of submissions on the next date that the matter is listed, to enable the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal to expeditiously dispose of the matter.

With the above observations, the petition stands disposed off .

In view of disposal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2024 stands disposed.

SD/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

CPN

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 53