MR B S CHANDRA SHEKAR vs BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:42785
WP No. 10248 of 2021
C/W WP No. 9660 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010098592021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 12 DAY OF AUGUST, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 10248 OF 2021 (BDA)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 9660 OF 2022
IN WP No. 10248/2021:
BETWEEN:
1. MR. B.S. CHANDRA SHEKAR
S/O. SRI. B.V. SADANANDA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.2053/B
TH ND
"ASHWINI", 10 CROSS, 2 MAIN
HAMPI NAGAR, R.P.C. LAYOUT
BANGALORE - 560104
2. MRS. C.T. SHARADAMMA
W/O K. SANNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
TH TH
NO.45, 9 MAIN, 5 CROSS
TH
5 BLOCK, VINAYAKANAGARA
JAYALAKSHMIPURAM
MYSORE - 570012
3. MR. KRISHNAMURTHY M.K.
S/O LATE KAMBE GOWDA K.
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
ND
NO.37, KANASU, 2 CROSS
VENKATADRI LAYOUT
RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR
PO: R.V. VIDHYANIKETAN
BANGALORE - 560059
4. MR. DINESH LAKSHMINARAYANA HEGDE
S/O SRI LAKSHMINARAYANA HEGDE
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
Digitally signed
by
HEMALATHA J
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:42785
WP No. 10248 of 2021
C/W WP No. 9660 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010098592021
ST
NO.918, 1 'F' MAIN ROAD
ND
2 PHASE, GIRI NAGAR
BANGALORE - 560085
5. DR. JOSHI MANISHA SHIVARAM
W/O CHANDRAKANTH G TANKSALI
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
6. MR. CHANDRAKANTH G TANKSALI
S/O GURUNATHRAO TANKSALI
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.45,
TH
"SAI GANESH", 4 CROSS, A BLOCK
SRI KRISHNA GARDEN LAYOUT
R.V. VIDHYANIKETAN POST
BANGALORE - 560059
7. MRS. CLEETA DARIA SALDANHA
W/O PASCAL VICTOR BRAGGS
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
8. MR. PASCAL VICTOR BRAGGS
S/O LATE BENJAMIN BRAGGS
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
NO.12(74/3) NEW NO.30
TH TH
5 MAIN, 5 BLOCK
RD RD
3 STAGE, 3 PHASE
BANASHANKARI
BANGALORE - 560085.
9. MRS. VEENA B.S.
W/O VENKATESH V.R.
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
10. VENKATESH V.R.
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
S/O V V RAMAIAH
ST
RESIDING AT NO.203, 1 FLOOR
SHRUSTI VANASIRI
KRISHNA GARDEN LAYOUT ROAD
MYLASANDRA, BANGALORE-560059.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:42785
WP No. 10248 of 2021
C/W WP No. 9660 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010098592021
11. MR. CHANDRA VARMAN P
S/O PURUSHOTHAMAN
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
NO.11, YELLAMMAN KOLI STREET
ND
2 CROSS, HALASURU
BANGALORE NORTH
BANGALORE - 560008
12. R.L. RAJAKUMAR
S/O R LAKSHMINARASIMHAIAH
AGE ABOUT 64 YEARS
NO.7, SHOP STREET
APS HIGH SCHOOL GROUND
BASAVANAGUDI
BANGALORE - 560004.
13. MRS. ANITA DHANARAJA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
W/O DR. DHANARAJA P DEVADIGA
RESIDING AT FLAT NO.204
M B M CLASSIC APARTMENT
TH ND
5 STAGE, 2 PHASE
OPPOSITE BUS DEPOT
BEML LAYOUT, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGARA
BANGALORE - 560098.
14. MRS. JYOTHI S
W/O MR. M S VIKAS
AGE ABOUT 38 YEARS
15. MR. M.S. VIKAS
S /O MR SHIVAMURTHY
AGE ABOUT 41 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
FLAT NO.303, SHRUSTI VANASIRI
DURGANAGAR LAYOUT
KRISHNA GARDEN LAYOUT ROAD
NEAR KRISHNA GARDEN LAYOUT PARK
MYLASANDRA, KENGERI HOBLI,
BENGALURU - 560059.
16. MR. B. NAVEEN KUMAR
S/O LATE B. NARAYANA RAO
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:42785
WP No. 10248 of 2021
C/W WP No. 9660 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010098592021
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.14
TH
SRIRAKSHA, 4 MAINROAD
TATA SILK FARM, OBALAPA GARDEN
BANGALORE - 560082
17. MRS. HAMSA G S
W/O ASHOK C S
AGE ABOUT 39 YEARS
18. MR. AHSOK C S
S/O SHIVANNA C K
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
ST
NO.27, NIDHI, 1 CROSS
VENKATADRI LAYOUT
NEAR KRISHNA GARDEN
BANGALORE SOUTH
BANGALORE-560059.
19. MRS. MADDURI SHANTHI RAO
W/O B.S. SAI VENKATARAM KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
20. MR. B.S. SAI VENKATARAM KUMAR
S/O B.V. SITHARAMA SASTRY
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
ST
NO.39, "NAGARSHRITA" 1 MAIN
ND RD
2 CROSS, BANASHANKARI 3 STAGE
HOSKEREHALLI BDA EXTENSION
NEAR NCERT
BENGALURU-560085.
21. MR. C.V. SHESHACHALA
S/O VENKATESHIAH C.A.
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
22. MRS. INDUMATHI S
W/O C.V. SHESHACHALA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:42785
WP No. 10248 of 2021
C/W WP No. 9660 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010098592021
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
FLAT NO.406, SHRUSTI VANASIRI APARTMENT
KRISHNA GARDEN, OMKAR ROAD
NEAR JSS ENGINEERING COLLEGE
MYLASANDRA RAJRAJESHWARI NAGARA
BANGALORE - 560059.
23. MRS. NIVEDITHA NADIG M.R.
W/O MR. CHANDAN ADIGA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
24. MR. CHANDAN ADIGA
S/O MR. NARAYANA ADIGA H V
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT FLAT
RD
NO.407, 3 FLOOR
SHRUSTI VANASIRI APARTMENT
SITE NO.89/90, DURGA NAGAR LAYOUT
NEAR JSS ENGINEERING COLLEGE
MYLASANDRA, RAJRAJESHWARI NAGARA
BANGALORE - 560059.
25. MR. NANDAKUMAR G N
S/O LATE NARAYANA IYENGAR G A
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
26. MRS. GEETHANJALI NANDAKUMAR
W/O MR. NANDAKUMAR G N
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.131, SRINILAYA
KESHAVA TEMPLE STREET
NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE
SHANTHI GRAMA
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573220.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. CYRIL PRASAD PAIS, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST
T CHOWDAIAH ROAD
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:42785
WP No. 10248 of 2021
C/W WP No. 9660 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010098592021
BANGALORE - 560 020
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
NO.3, SOUTH SUB-DIVISION
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BDA SHOPPING COMPLEX
ND
BANASHANKARI 2 STAGE
BANGALORE-560070.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANOHAR M., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 10.02.2021 PASSED BY THE R-2 HEREIN IN PROCEEDINGS
VIDE ANNEXURE-A CONSEQUENTLY, CONSIDER THE OBJECTIONS OF
THE PETITIONER AND UPON CONSIDERATION OF SUCH
OBJECTIONS, HEAR THE PETITIONERS AND THEREAFTER, PASS AN
ORDER BASED ON THE NATURE AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
CASE.
IN WP NO. 9660/2022:
BETWEEN:
SMT. SANDHYA RAJASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
W/O MR. G.V. RAJASHEKAR
PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT NO.E-906
JACARANDA BLOCK
BRIGADE MILLENNIUM
TH
J.P. NAGAR, 7 PHASE
BANGALORE-560 078
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.4370
PATRIOT PARK COURT
FAIRFAX V.A.22030, USA.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. CYRIL PRASAD PAIS, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:42785
WP No. 10248 of 2021
C/W WP No. 9660 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010098592021
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
NO.3, SOUTH SUB-DIVISION
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BANGALORE-560038.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANOHAR M., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 10.2.2021 PASSED BY THE R-2 HEREIN IN PROCEEDINGS
WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-A CONSEQUENTLY CONSIDER THE
OBJECTIONS FILED BY PETITIONER AND UPON CONSIDERATION OF
SUCH OBJECTIONS, HEAR THE PETITIONER THE THEREAFTER, PASS
AN ORDER BASED ON THE NATURE AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
ABOVE CASE AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners in W.P.No.10248/2021 and the petitioner
in W.P.No.9660/2022 have sought for a writ in the nature of
certiorari to quash the order bearing No.BDA/AEE-3(S)/T
332/2020-21 dated 10.02.2021 and consequently have sought
for a direction to the respondent No.1 to consider their
objections and pass an appropriate order. Alternatively, they
have sought for quashing the entire proceedings initiated by
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:42785
WP No. 10248 of 2021
C/W WP No. 9660 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010098592021
the respondent No.2 - Assistant Executive Engineer in both the
writ petitions.
2. Facts that can be gathered from these two petitions
are coalesced as follows:
(i) That the land in Sy.Nos.23 and 25 of Mailasandra
Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk was owned and
possessed by Mr. S. Udayashankar S/o. G.S.Bhat and his
family. Mr. S. Udayashankar filed a suit for partition of his
th
1/12 share. The suit was compromised, in terms of which the
aforesaid survey numbers were divided into 12 parts. Site
No.89 fell to the share of Mr. S. Ravishankar Bhat and Site
No.90 fell to the share of Mr. S. Girish Bhat. A final decree was
thereafter drawn. Later, Mr. S. Ravishankar Bhat sold site
No.89 to Mr. Karthik Natarajan and Mr. Harish Natarajan on
14.10.1995. Similarly, Mr. S. Girish Bhat sold site No.90 to
Mr. Harish Natarajan and Mr. Karthik Natarajan on 14.10.1995.
Thereafter, Mr. Karthik Natarajan and Mr. Harish Natarajan sold
site No.89 to Mr. Rangachar and Smt. Usha R Achar on
28.06.2004. Site No.90 was sold to Smt. Sandhya Rajshekar on
28.06.2004. Mr. Rangachar had caused a publication in the
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:42785
WP No. 10248 of 2021
C/W WP No. 9660 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010098592021
newspaper inviting objections if any. Mr. G.S.Bhat filed
objections claiming that he had formed a layout and that there
was an understanding amongst his family members that they
would pay the development charges proportionate to their
share. He thereafter filed O.S.No.4298/2005 for perpetual
injunction against Mr. S. Rangachar and Smt. Usha R. Achar,
which was dismissed on 19.10.2012. Later, a complaint was
filed against Mr. G.S.Bhat that he had formed a road on land
belonging to the Forest Department. After an enquiry, the
Forest Department resumed the land and fenced it. A
representative suit was filed by 21 persons against
Mr. G.S.Bhat and others in O.S.No.5997/2009 from damaging a
road in the layout. Mr. G.S.Bhat filed another suit in
O.S.No.7328/2009 for perpetual injunction in respect of site
No.27A. The suit in O.S.No.5997/2009 was decreed and
O.S.No.7328/2009 was dismissed. Mr. G.S.Bhat earlier filed
O.S.No.6883/2004 against his brothers where he did not
mention that site No.89 was a civic amenity site but claimed
that the said site belonged to Mr. S. Ravishankar Bhat.
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:42785
WP No. 10248 of 2021
C/W WP No. 9660 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010098592021
(ii) The petitioners contend that a person named
Mr. Sudhindra had filed W.P.No.21367/2010 against
Mr. S.Rangachar and Smt. Sandhya Rajshekar contending that
site Nos.89 and 90 were reserved for a civic amenity. The
petitioners contend that the said writ petition was disposed off
as withdrawn, but this Court vide order dated 18.01.2012 held
that the vendors of Mr. S. Rangachar and Smt. Sandhya
Rajshekar had partitioned their respective properties which was
under a seal of decree of the Civil Court. The submission of the
counsel for BDA that the layout of sites in Sy.Nos.23 and 25 of
Mailasandra Village was not sanctioned by it, was also noted.
When things stood thus, a Public Interest Litigation was
launched by Mr. N.P.Shekar who filed W.P.No.50643/2016
seeking for a direction to the Engineers of BBMP to take over
the sites reserved for civic amenities in Sy.Nos.23 and 25 of
Mailasandra village and demolish the existing construction
thereon. The vendors of the petitioners were arrayed as
respondent Nos.4 to 7. The writ petition was disposed off by an
order dated 23.07.2019 directing the official respondents to
take action in accordance with law and liberty was reserved to
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:42785
WP No. 10248 of 2021
C/W WP No. 9660 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010098592021
the vendors of petitioners to raise their objections before the
competent authority. An application was filed by Mr. Rangachar
before the BDA to ascertain whether it had sanctioned any
layout plan in respect of Sy.Nos.23 and 25 of Mailasandra
village. The BDA replied stating that it had not sanctioned any
plan of the layout in the aforementioned survey numbers.
(iii) The petitioners claim that the owners of Site Nos.
89 and 90 entered into a joint development agreement with the
developer who undertook development of a multi-storied
residential complex comprising a basement, ground floor and
three additional floors, after obtaining necessary plan, license
and commencement certificate from the Municipal Corporation.
The petitioners claim that they are purchasers of flats
constructed in the aforesaid residential complex. They contend
that when things stood thus, the respondent Nos.1 and 2
issued a letter dated 10.02.2021 to the residents of the
apartment stating that the apartment is constructed in an area
earmarked for a park and open space and therefore directed
demolition of the construction and hand over the said property
to the respondent No.1. The residents under the Right to
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:42785
WP No. 10248 of 2021
C/W WP No. 9660 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010098592021
Information Act, 2005, obtained information from the BDA that
no layout plan was approved in respect of Sy.Nos.23 and 25
and it was also informed that there was no question of deemed
approval of the plan.
3. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are
before the Court.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that the respondent No.2 has issued the impugned notice on
the assumption that Mr.G.S.Bhat had formed a layout of
residential sites, after a plan submitted by him was deemed to
have been approved. He contends that assuming, but not
admitting that such a plan was submitted, there is nothing on
record to show that the same was approved by the respondent
No.1. He contends that Mr. G. S. Bhat had subsequently altered
his position by entering into a compromise in
O.S.No.5511/1993, in terms of which, the properties in Sy.
Nos.23 and 25 of Mailasandra village were divided amongst him
and his cousins. Therefore, he contends that even assuming
that such a plan was submitted, the same was never given
effect to. He contends that no relinquishment deed was
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:42785
WP No. 10248 of 2021
C/W WP No. 9660 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010098592021
executed by Mr. G.S.Bhat in favour of the respondent No.1.
Therefore, the respondent No.2 could not issue the impugned
notice against the petitioners.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has
placed on record a copy of the proposed layout plan in Sy. Nos.
23 and 25 of Mailsandra Village with particular reference to Site
Nos.89 and 90 along with a copy of the Google Map showing
the location of the property. He submits that a perusal of this
map submitted by Mr. G.S.Bhat would indicate that Site Nos.89
and 90 were reserved for civic amenity. He contends that since
this plan was not rejected by the respondent No.1, under
Section 15(2) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act,
1961, the plan is deemed to have been approved and Site Nos.
89 and 90 of Mailasandra Village stood impliedly relinquished in
favour of the respondent No.1. He therefore contends that the
impugned notice issued by the respondent No.1 is justified, as
the construction is put up on Site Nos.89 and 90 which are
identified as reserved for civic amenity.
6. This Court in terms of an order dated 05.08.2026
directed the respondent No.1 to inspect Site Nos.89 and 90 and
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:42785
WP No. 10248 of 2021
C/W WP No. 9660 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010098592021
submit a report. In compliance of the said order, a memo is
now filed by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 which
reads as follows:
"The Respondent No.2- Bangalore Development
Authority respectfully submits as follows:
The above writ petitions were listed before this
Hon'ble Court on 05.08.2026, wherein this Hon'ble Court
has direct the Bangalore Development Authority to re-
conduct an inspection with reference to the relevant
records and the proposed layout plan available in the
BDA case file, for the purpose of ascertaining whether
the subject property falls within the area earmarked as a
Civic Amenity (CA) Site or otherwise.
In compliance with the said direction, the
Bangalore Development Authority has re-conducted
the inspection and examined the relevant records
pertaining to the subject property. Accordingly, the
Inspection Report/Official Communication dated
07.08.2026 is produced herewith and marked as
Annexure-R3.
The relevant BDA record bearing No.BDA/RIA-
1036/310/4559/2010-11 dated 14.02.2011, referred to
in the said report, is produced herewith and marked as
Annexure-R4.
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:42785
WP No. 10248 of 2021
C/W WP No. 9660 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010098592021
The relevant BDA record bearing No.BDA/RIA-
528/4967/2006-07 dated 22.03.2007, referred to in the
said report, is produced herewith and marked as
Annexure-R5.
WHEREFORE, the Respondent - Bangalore
Development Authority respectfully prays that this
Hon'ble Court may be pleased to take the Inspection
Report and Annexures-R3 to R5 on record as compliance
with the order dated 05.08.2026, in the interest of
Justice and Equity."
7. A copy of the letter dated 14.02.2011 is placed on
record, where the respondent No.1 has categorically stated that
there is no question of granting deemed approval of the layout
formed in Sy.Nos.23 and 25 of Mailasandra village. Similarly, a
letter dated 22.03.2007 issued by the respondent No.1 is
placed on record, which establishes that no plan was ever
submitted in respect of the land bearing Sy.Nos.23 and 25 of
Mailasandra village and that no plan was ever sanctioned in
respect of the said survey numbers.
8. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1
submitted that the aforesaid documents establish that there
was no deemed approval of any plan and that no plan was
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:42785
WP No. 10248 of 2021
C/W WP No. 9660 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010098592021
submitted to the respondent No.1 for development of the lands
bearing Sy.Nos.23 and 25 of Mailasandra village.
9. Having given my anxious consideration to the
contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners
and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in both
the petitions, the whole controversy revolves around a layout
plan allegedly submitted by Sri. G.S.Bhat, who was one of the
predecessors in title of the land bearing Sy.Nos.23 and 25 of
Mailasandra Village. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 claimed that
Mr. G. S. Bhat had initially submitted a layout plan, where Site
Nos.89 and 90 were reserved for civic amenity purpose. It is
also the contention of the respondents Nos.1 and 2 that the
said plan was deemed to have been approved, as the
respondent No.1 had not taken any decision within 90 days
prescribed under Section 15(2) of the Karnataka Town and
Country Planning Act, 1961. However, the documents now
placed on record establish that the respondent No.1 itself had
not treated the plan allegedly submitted by Mr. G.S.Bhat as
deemed to be approved.
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:42785
WP No. 10248 of 2021
C/W WP No. 9660 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010098592021
10. When there is no deemed approval of any plan
submitted by the owner of Sy.Nos.23 and 24 and when there is
no relinquishment of Site Nos.89 and 90 in favour of the
respondent No.1, it is difficult to comprehend how the
respondent No.2 could have issued a notice to the petitioners
contending that Site Nos.89 and 90 of Mailsandra Village were
reserved for civic amenity and that the constructions put up
thereon are liable to be demolished and that the property
should be handed over to the respondent No.1.
11. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the
opinion that the impugned notice dated 10.02.2021 issued in
both the writ petitions is an abuse of the process of law as well
as the powers of the respondent No.2 and hence is liable to be
set at nought.
12. Consequently the petition is allowed . The
impugned order bearing No.BDA/AEE-3(S)/T332/2020-21 dated
10.02.2021 issued by the respondent No.2 which is challenged
in both the writ petitions is quashed. The respondents are
directed not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners
in the residential properties constructed over Site Nos.89 and
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:42785
WP No. 10248 of 2021
C/W WP No. 9660 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010098592021
90 formed in Sy.Nos.23 and 25 of Mailasandra Village.
However, if the respondent No.1 construes the layout as
unauthorised, it may take necessary steps as provided in law,
but only after hearing the petitioners and in accordance with
law.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ)
JUDGE
HJ
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11