ROYAL PALMS RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION vs THE COMMISSIONER

- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7169
WP No. 40299 of 2014
C/W WP No. 47937 of 2019

HC-KAR
R

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 6 DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

WRIT PETITION NO.40299 OF 2014 (LB-BMP)

C/W

WRIT PETITION NO.47937 OF 2019 (LB-BMP)

IN WP No.40299/2014:

BETWEEN:

1. MANTRI TRANQUIL APARTMENTS
OWNERS ASSOCIATION
"MANTRI TRANQUIL" NOS.7/9/13,
GUBBALALA VILLAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 061.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
MR. M.S.RAGHU RAM.

2. MANTRI DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,
NO.41,VITTAL MALLYA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
SRI. GIRISH GUPTA H.S.,
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI B.C.SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR
PETITIONER NO.1;
SRI MAHESH S., ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER NO.2)

AND:

1. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
HUDSON CIRCLE, N.R. ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

Digitally signed by
BASALINGAPPA S D
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7169
WP No. 40299 of 2014
C/W WP No. 47937 of 2019

HC-KAR

2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
UTTARAHALLI SUB-DIVISION,
SUBRAMANYAPURA, UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 061.

3. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST,
BANGALORE – 560 020.
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560 001.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI N.R. JAGADEESWARA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI BOPANNA BELLIYAPPA, A.G.A. FOR R4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
I) ISSUE AN ORDER OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED
30.07.2014 IN AEE/SDV/PR/268/2014-2015 CAUSED BY THE
ND
2 RESPONDENT UNDER ANNEXURE-G, II) ISSUE AN ORDER
ST ND
IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE 1 AND 2
RESPONDENTS NOT TO INTERFERE WITH THE RIGHTFUL
ST
OCCUPATION OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE 1 PETITIONER
ASSOCIATION IN THE RESIDENTIAL COMPLEX KNOWN AS
“MANTRI TRANQUIL” BUILT ON THE PROPERTY BEARING
KHATA NO.1208/7, 9 AND 13 SITUATED AT SY.NO.7, 9 AND 13
OF GUBBALALA VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE
SOUTH TALUK AND III) ISSUE AN ORDER OR DIRECTION IN
ST ND
THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE 1 AND 2
RESPONDENTS NOT TO DEMOLISH THE RESIDENTIAL
COMPLEX THE PETITIONERS KNOWN AS “MANTRA TRANQUIL”
BUILT ON THE PROPERTY BEARING KHATA NO.1208/7, 9 AND
13 SITUATED AT SY.NOS.7, 9 AND 13 OF GUBBALALA VILLAGE,
AMENDED VIDE
COURT ORDER
DATED
03.11.2022

- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7169
WP No. 40299 of 2014
C/W WP No. 47937 of 2019

HC-KAR

UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, OR ANY
PORTION THEREOF AND ETC.

IN WP NO.47937/2019:

BETWEEN:

1. ROYAL PALMS RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION,
REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI KRISHNAN A,
R/O: ROYAL PALM LAYOUT,
SY NO.11, GUBBALALA CROSS,
NEXT TO MANTRI TRANQUIL,
KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU – 560 061.

2. SRI. B.R. SANJAY
S/O B.S. RAJENDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
TH
R/O: NO.454, 7 MAIN,
TH
4 BLOCK JAYANAGARA,
BENGALURU – 560 011.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ONKARA K.B., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE COMMISSIONER,
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP)
HUDSON CIRCLE, N.R. SQUARE,
BANGALORE – 560 002.

2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER,
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP)
BOMMANAHALLI ZONE,
BENGALURU – 560 068.

3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP)
UTTARAHALLI SUB-DIVISION, SUBRAMANYAPURA,
UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 061.

- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7169
WP No. 40299 of 2014
C/W WP No. 47937 of 2019

HC-KAR

4. THE COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BANGALORE – 560 001.

5. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
(STORM WATER DRAINS)
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP)
BBMP OFFICE BUILDING,
HUDSON CIRCLE,
N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560 002.

...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3
AND R5;
SRI KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
I) ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION
IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENTS NOT TO TRANSGRESS OR TRESPASS OR
NOT TO INTERFERE WITH THE RIGHTFUL OCCUPATION
ST
AND POSSESSION OF RESIDENTS OF THE 1 PETITIONER
ASSOCIATION FORMED IN THE RESIDENTIAL LAYOUT
KNOWN AS “ROYAL PALMS LAYOUT” SITUATED AT
SY.NO.11 OF GUBBALALA VILLAGE, UTARAHALLI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, UNDER THE GUISE OF STORM
WATER DRAIN OR UNDER THE GUISE OF REMOVAL OF
ENCROACHMENT OVER THE STORM WATER DRAIN AS
PRAYED FOR IN THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23.09.2019
AS PER ANNEXURE-A.
II) ISSUE AN ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE
OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO
DEMOLISH THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSES CONSTRUCTED IN
THE RESIDENTIAL LAYOUT KNOWN AS “ROYAL PALMS
LAYOUT” SITUATED AT SY.NO.11 OF GUBBALALA VILLAGE
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7169
WP No. 40299 of 2014
C/W WP No. 47937 of 2019

HC-KAR

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners in W.P.No.40299/2014 have
challenged a notice bearing No.AEE/SDV/PR/268/2014-
2015 dated 30.07.2014 issued by the respondent No.2.
They have sought for writ in the nature of mandamus to
direct the respondent Nos.1 and 2 not to interfere with the
occupation of the members of the petitioner No.1 in the
residential complex known as “Mantri Tranquil” built on
property bearing Khata No.1208/7, 9 and 13 situated at
Sy.Nos.7, 9 and 13 of Gubbalala Village, Uttrahalli Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk. They have also sought for a writ in
the nature of mandamus to direct respondent Nos.1 and 2
not to demolish the residential complex known as “Mantri
Tranquil” built on property bearing Khata No.1208/7, 9
acres and 13 guntas situate in Sy.Nos.7, 9 and 13 of

- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7169
WP No. 40299 of 2014
C/W WP No. 47937 of 2019

HC-KAR

Gubbalala village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South
Taluk, or any portion thereof.
2. The petitioners in W.P.No.47937/2019 have
sought for writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the
respondents not to transgress or trespass or to interfere in
the rightful occupation and possession of the residents of
the petitioner No.1 formed in the residential layout known
as “Royal Palms Layout” situated at Sy.No.11 of Gubbalala
village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk under the
guise of restoring a storm water drain or under the guise
of removal of encroachment over the storm water drain as
per their representation dated 23.09.2019. They have also
sought for writ in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondents not to demolish the residential houses
constructed in the residential layout known as “Royal
Palms Layout” situated at Sy.No.11 of Gubbalala village,
Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk.
3. The petitioners in W.P.No.40299/2014 contend
that the petitioner No.2 proposed to develop land in

- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7169
WP No. 40299 of 2014
C/W WP No. 47937 of 2019

HC-KAR

Sy.Nos.7, 9 and 13 of Gubbalala Village, measuring 19
acres 30 guntas. The aforesaid land was already converted
from agricultural to non-agricultural residential use in
terms of orders dated 16.12.2004 and 31.03.2005. The
property so converted was assessed to tax by the
Panchayat and the name of the petitioner No.2 was
included in the property records of the Panchayat. The
lands fell within the limits of the Bruhat Bengaluru
Mahanagara Palike (for short, ‘BBMP’) in the year 2007.
The respondent No.1 entered the name of the petitioner
No.2 in the property register in respect of the aforesaid
properties and assigned Khata No.1208/7, 9 and 13.
Petitioners claim that as per the Comprehensive
Development Plan,1995 (for short, ‘CDP,1995’) the lands
above mentioned lay within the residential zone and there
was no mention of any storm water drain running through
the aforesaid lands. The petitioner No.2 in order to
construct a multi-dwelling residential apartment sought
sanction of a building plan from the Bangalore

- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7169
WP No. 40299 of 2014
C/W WP No. 47937 of 2019

HC-KAR

Development Authority (for short, ‘BDA’) and also no
objection certificates from the Pollution Control Board,
BWSSGB, BESCOM, BSNL, Director General of Police,
Airport Authority of India. Later, it sought approval of a
building plan from the BDA to construct 05 residential
buildings consisting of Ground plus 14 upper floors. The
said plan was sanctioned on 21.08.2007 which was
thereafter modified. The BDA also granted license for the
construction and a commencement certificate authorizing
the commencement of construction. Petitioners contend
that after obtaining all the relevant permissions and
sanctions from the concerned authorities, developmental
activities in the aforesaid lands were taken up. The
concerned authorities had also inspected the lands and
were satisfied that petitioners had obtained all the
required permissions and sanctions as stated above.
Petitioners claim that after the construction was completed
in all respects in accordance with the sanction plan, the
BDA issued an occupancy certificate. It is claimed that the

- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7169
WP No. 40299 of 2014
C/W WP No. 47937 of 2019

HC-KAR

petitioner No.2 had sold the individual apartments to
various purchasers, who all constituted as members of an
apartment association as per the provisions of the
Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act and Rules, 1972.
Petitioners claim that the petitioner No.2 had put up five
buildings with eleven wings consisting of 1131 apartments,
where all the apartments have been sold to third parties
way back in the year 2009. Petitioners contend that after
such registration, the owners of the apartments had
applied to the BBMP for entering their names in the
property register and that the same are pending.
4. It is claimed that the respondent Nos.1 and 2
have assessed the individual apartments to property tax
and they are collecting the property taxes regularly from
the owners of the apartments from the year 2009-10 and
onwards. They also contend that separate electricity
meters are installed by BESCOM in the year 2010 and the
members of petitioner No.1 are drawing electricity and are
paying the charges for consumption. Petitioners claimed

- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7169
WP No. 40299 of 2014
C/W WP No. 47937 of 2019

HC-KAR

that when things stood thus, the petitioner No.1 was
served with a notice dated 30.07.2014 by the respondent
No.2 alleging that the petitioner No.2 had constructed a
building on the storm water drain and also constructed a
compound wall, parking in basement and laid a garden
over the same. The respondent No.2 therefore directed the
petitioner No.1 to remove the same to ensure free
passage of storm water, failing which they would initiate
appropriate proceedings for removal of such constructions.
The petitioners contend that the impugned notice was as
bald as it could be as the respondent No.2 did not intimate
in which portion of the land belonging to the petitioners,
the storm water drain ran and where the petitioner No.2
had constructed a building over it. Therefore, the
petitioner No.1 submitted a reply dated 12.08.2014 to the
respondent No.2, informing that all the approvals were
obtained and the apartment complex has been developed
by the petitioner No.2. The petitioner No.1 informed the
respondent No.2 that they have been informed by the

- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7169
WP No. 40299 of 2014
C/W WP No. 47937 of 2019

HC-KAR

Petitioner No.2 that there is no discrepancy in the
construction and that all terms and conditions imposed by
various Governmental authorities at the time of approvals
have been strictly adhered to and that the petitioner No.2
had not put up any construction over the storm water
drain. The petitioner No.2 had purportedly assured the
petitioner No.1 that no storm water drain exists within the
project area. The petitioners contend that the project area
measures about 19 acres 30 guntas in Sy.Nos.7, 9 and 13
of Gubbalala Village. The respondent No.2 had issued the
notice without even identifying the course of the storm
water drain or even identifying the portion of the land
where construction was put up. It was also contended that
when the lands in question were converted for non-
agricultural residential use and when a plan was
sanctioned by the authorities enabling petitioner No.2 to
put up construction, none of the authorities had indicated
that a storm water drain ran through the said lands. It is
also claimed that even as per in the CDP,1995, there was

- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7169
WP No. 40299 of 2014
C/W WP No. 47937 of 2019

HC-KAR

no mention that storm water drain ran through the lands
in question. It is also claimed that when the authorities
had physically inspected the land before sanctioning a
plan, they did not find any storm water drain running
through the lands in question. The petitioners claim that to
their utter shock, the officers of BESCOM visited the
residential complex on 11.08.2014 and instructed and held
out to the petitioners that the respondent No.1 and 2 have
instructed them to disconnect electricity on the ground
that the construction has been put up over the storm
water drain. The petitioners claim that despite the
repeated requests by the occupants, the authorities of
BESCOM disconnected power supply to a portion of the
residential complex. The petitioners claim that there is no
storm water drain running through Sy.No.7 of Gubbalala
Village or any portion of the project area. They contend
that there is a small portion of kharab land which the
petitioner No.2 was attempting to get it regularized.

- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7169
WP No. 40299 of 2014
C/W WP No. 47937 of 2019

HC-KAR

5. They also claimed that when the petitioner No.2
procured the lands for development, there was no storm
water drain running through the said lands and therefore
the question of putting up any construction over the storm
water drain did not arise. They also claimed that the
respondent No.2 had mentioned in the notice that a
survey was conducted before issuing the notice, though no
such survey was conducted to the knowledge of the
petitioners as they were not notified about it. They also
claimed that the officers of respondent Nos.1 and 2 had
made periodical visits during the course of construction
and they had not raised any objection of whatsoever
nature. It is thus claimed that the notice in question is
issued only to harass the petitioners that too after eight
years from the date of putting up construction. The
petitioners have therefore challenged the said notice.
6. The petitioners in W.P.No.47937/2019 contend
that the father of the petitioner No.2 had acquired 08
acres 18 guntas of land in Sy.No.11 of Gubbalala Village

- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7169
WP No. 40299 of 2014
C/W WP No. 47937 of 2019

HC-KAR

and other properties in terms of a deed of partition dated
29.12.1959. He got the same converted for non-
agricultural residential use in terms of an order of the
Deputy Commissioner dated 11.03.1997. He claimed that
his father intended to form residential sites in the
converted land and therefore got a plan approved from the
Subramanyapura Grama Panchayat on 26.06.1997. They
contend that after the area fell within the limits of the
BBMP, the father of the petitioner No.2 paid improvement
charges to the BDA on 04.01.2005. Thereafter, they
contend that the land was converted into residential sites
and most of them were sold to buyers and subsequently
the khatas were transferred to their respective names.
They also contend that many of the buyers have
constructed houses in their respective sites after obtaining
necessary approvals and sanctions from the concerned
authorities in accordance with the relevant rules and bye-
laws. They also contend that as per the CDP, 1995, their
property lay within a residential zone and there was no

- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7169
WP No. 40299 of 2014
C/W WP No. 47937 of 2019

HC-KAR

mention of any nala or groundwater drain running through
the aforesaid land. The petitioner No.1 was constituted
from amongst the owners of residential sites within the
layout. They contend that some poles were laid here and
there by respondent No.2 within the layout and when the
petitioners enquired, the employees of the respondents
informed that those poles identified the storm water drain
running through the layout and informed the residents to
voluntarily vacate their houses. The petitioners claim that
the respondents had informed them that a survey was
conducted before marking the storm water drain, though
no such survey was conducted to their knowledge. The
petitioners claim that from the date, the land was
converted for non-agricultural residential use, till the date
the officers of the respondents had granted sanctions and
permissions to form a layout and construct buildings
thereon, none of the authorities had ever found that a
storm water drain ran through the lands in question. As a
matter of fact, they contend that even in the CDP, 1995,

- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7169
WP No. 40299 of 2014
C/W WP No. 47937 of 2019

HC-KAR

there was no mention of any storm water drain running
through the land of the petitioners. The petitioners further
claim that the respondents threatened to demolish the
construction put up over a non-existing storm water drain
and the same was evident from the reports published in
the newspapers. They contend that a storm water drain
already exists on the northern end of the layout and the
same is intact and even to this day is protecting the layout
from heavy rain and persistent storm. However, the
respondents without considering the same and without
conducting any survey have laid poles just to intimidate
the residents. The petitioners submitted detailed
representation dated 23.09.2019 requesting the
respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider the drain already
existing on the northern side of the layout as the actual
drain flowing in Sy.No.11 and to remove the poles laid
within the layout. The petitioners contend that since the
respondents are threatening to dispossess the residents

- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7169
WP No. 40299 of 2014
C/W WP No. 47937 of 2019

HC-KAR

under the guise of removal of encroachment over the
storm water drain, they have filed this petition.
7. The writ petition is opposed by the respondent
Nos.1 and 2, who have filed statement of objections
contending that the petitioners have an alternate remedy
under Section 102 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1976
and therefore the writ petition is not maintainable. They
also contend that due to rapid urbanization there has been
several encroachments on public properties by builders
and developers. In that regard, a public interest litigation
was filed before this Court in W.P.No.31394/2009. The
Division Bench of this Court specifically directed the
removal of all encroachments over the storm water drains
in the city of Bangalore. The respondents contend that
these storm water drains play an important role in
discharging the rain water to the nearby tanks and thereby
preventing flooding of water in the low lying areas.
Therefore, it is claimed that these storm water drains play
an important role in controlling flood like situation and also

- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7169
WP No. 40299 of 2014
C/W WP No. 47937 of 2019

HC-KAR

act as a source of water for lakes and tanks and helps in
recharging the ground water level.
8. The respondents contend that in the village
map of Gubbalala, particularly in the land bearing
Sy.Nos.7, there is a clear indication that a storm water
drain runs through the survey numbers. Therefore, they
contend that the claim of the petitioners that there is no
reference to the existence of storm water drain is false
and incorrect. They contend that in view of the order
passed by the Division Bench of this Court in
W.P.No.31394/2009, the Deputy Commissioner of
Bangalore Urban District and Chief Engineer (Storm Water
Drain) of BBMP appointed surveyors for conducting a
survey for identifying the limits of the storm water drain.
In furtherance thereto, a survey was conducted and in the
survey there was a clear demarcation of the storm water
drain and the encroachment made over such storm water
drain including the encroachment made by the petitioners
in both these writ petitions. It was observed in the survey

- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7169
WP No. 40299 of 2014
C/W WP No. 47937 of 2019

HC-KAR

that the petitioners had encroached 242.8 meters long and
5 meters wide and in all measuring 12 guntas of land.
They contend that the survey report not only depicts the
encroached portion but also specifies the exact
measurement of the encroachment. They contend that in
the CDP, 1995, there is no mention regarding the storm
water drain as it only depicts the overall picture of the
larger area and the petitioners cannot rely upon the same
and contend that there is no storm water drain running
through the aforesaid survey numbers. They contend that
the Village map and the survey report show the exact
location of the storm water drain. With these contentions,
the respondent Nos.1 and 2 pray that the petition be
dismissed.
9. A rejoinder is filed by the petitioners in
W.P.No.40299/2014 to the statement of objections filed
thereto, wherein, it is contended that the decisions of the
Division Bench in W.P.No.31394/2009 is not applicable to
the case on hand as there are no storm water drains

- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7169
WP No. 40299 of 2014
C/W WP No. 47937 of 2019

HC-KAR

running through the properties of the petitioners. They
have also denied the existence of storm water drains as
mentioned in Annexure-R2. They also claim that the
village map cannot be relied upon as it was drawn up
almost a century ago and the same does not reflect the
correct topography of the lands in question. It is also
contended that the topography of the lands would undergo
changes over the time and the course of streams, drains,
etc. It is contended that in the CDP, 1995, the land of the
petitioners lies within the residential zonal and there is no
reference to any storm water drain. They also contend
that they are not aware of the appointment of the
surveyors by the Deputy Commissioner and the
appointment of the Assistant Executive Engineer for the
purpose of the identifying the storm water drains. They
contend that the inspection done in respect of Sy.No.7 and
the encroachment over the storm water drain is false.
They contend that to their knowledge, no survey was
conducted as none of the petitioners or their

- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7169
WP No. 40299 of 2014
C/W WP No. 47937 of 2019

HC-KAR

representatives had affixed the signatures. They contend
that the survey was primarily based on revenue and
survey extracts and not based on land conversion, ground
realty, etc. They also contend that no notices were ever
issued to them before conducting such a survey. They
contend that since the planning authority had sanctioned a
development plan and the petitioner No.2 had constructed
and completed the residential apartment in respect of
which occupancy certificate is issued by the BDA, it is not
open to now allege encroachment of the storm water
drains.
10. The BDA has filed its statement of objections
contending that as per the RTC for the year 2005-06, the
total land the kharab in Sy.No.7, 9 and 13 are as follows:
Sy.No. Total extent ‘A’ Kharab ‘B’ Kharab
(Acres-Guntas) (Acres-Guntas) (Acres-Guntas)
7 14-06 1-06 0-19
9 03-31 0-16 --
13 09-06 0-34 --

- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7169
WP No. 40299 of 2014
C/W WP No. 47937 of 2019

HC-KAR

11. It is contended that as per the order of
conversion of Sy.No.7, the Deputy Commissioner collected
the market value of 27 guntas of ‘A’ kharab. It is
contended that it approved a modified development plan
at the authority meeting dated 25.05.2007 as per the then
Revised CDP,1995, and a work order dated 23.07.2007
was issued in respect of 18 acres 38.5 guntas out of 22
acres 6.5 guntas of converted land. It is contended that
as per the RCDP, 1995, there was no storm water drain in
Sy.Nos.7, 9 and 13. However, in the master plan 2015,
adjacent to Sy.No.7, storm water drains was shown.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioners in both
the said petitions reiterated the above contentions and
submitted that when the storm water drain is not shown in
the Comprehensive Development Plan, conversion sketch
and in the building/layout plan sanctioned, the
respondents cannot now claim that a storm water drain
existed and runs through the survey numbers where the
construction is put up and upset the apple cart by issuing

- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7169
WP No. 40299 of 2014
C/W WP No. 47937 of 2019

HC-KAR

a notice alleging that the petitioners have put up
construction over the storm water drain. They also
contend that the respondents have not disclosed whether
the storm water drains still exists in view of the
urbanization of the area. They contend that due to rapid
urbanization, the drains and other water courses have
gone extinct and do not serve any useful purpose and
therefore restoration of these drains does not serve any
useful purpose. They therefore contend that the
respondents with an oblique intent are claiming that these
storm water drains are required to drain water from the
surrounding areas into Subramanyapura lake.
13. They contend that the petitioner No.2 in
W.P.No.40299/2014 has in fact made provision for
discharge of rain water that may be collected within its
project area. They submit that assuming that there was a
storm water drain running through the land in question,
the drain that is laid by the petitioners in
W.P.No.40299/2014 would be sufficient to drain the water

- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7169
WP No. 40299 of 2014
C/W WP No. 47937 of 2019

HC-KAR

during the rainy season. They also contend that during the
last several years, there is no incidents of water logging or
flooding and therefore, no useful purpose would be served
in trying to pull down constructions put up by the
petitioners lawfully in accordance with the plan sanctioned
etc. They also raised several contentions such as, that the
respondents have only tried to single out the petitioners
and have not made any attempts to restore the alleged
storm water drains in other areas. Therefore, they contend
that the impugned notices are designed to harass and
cause inconvenience to the residents and members of the
petitioners.
14. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1
and 2 on the other hand submitted that the storm water
drains connect to Subramanyapura lake and the same is
mentioned in the village map of Gubbalala. He contends
that the very fact that the petitioners in
W.P.No.40299/2014 have made provision for discharge of
storm water drains from their property makes it more than

- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7169
WP No. 40299 of 2014
C/W WP No. 47937 of 2019

HC-KAR

evident that they knew that a storm water drain ran
through the property and therefore the petitioners are
bound to restore the storm water drain and if need be, by
demolishing or removing the construction put up thereon.
He submits the petitioners have put up construction at
their own risk notwithstanding the fact that the
construction so put up, was on a public utility and
therefore no interference is warranted with the notices
issued by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to the petitioners.
15. This Court in terms of an order dated
27.10.2014 in W.P.No.40299/2014, passed the following
order:
ORDER
“
Sri. Gachchinmath, learned counsel for
BBMP submits that there is a storm water
drain cutting across the property belonging to
the petitioners. In the absence of relevant
material constituting substantial legal
evidence of the fact of starting point of the
storm water drain and its ending point and
the nature of development having taken place

- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7169
WP No. 40299 of 2014
C/W WP No. 47937 of 2019

HC-KAR

at the starting point or ending point, it would
be in futility to continue the exercise of
identifying drains in petitioners' property.
Therefore, the Authorities are directed to
place before Court relevant material
particulars of the starting point of the drain
and what development activity has taken
place and the number of drains cut besides
the public road and other material particulars
including the topography and gradients of the
entire layouts beside the property in question.
There shall be an ad-interim order of
stay as prayed for.”

16. This Court granted stay of the notice issued by
the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Thereafter, on 18.11.2014, a
map was filed by the learned counsel for the respondent
Nos.1 and 2 in compliance with order dated 27.10.2014.
This Court after perusing the map, in terms of an order
dated 03.12.2014 held,
“ it is not possible to accept the map ex facie to
establish that the Raja Kaluve does pass
through the properties belonging to the
petitioner. If development activity has taken

- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7169
WP No. 40299 of 2014
C/W WP No. 47937 of 2019

HC-KAR

place, layouts formed, then it is not known as to
what would be the effect of or purpose in the
Raja Kaluve. This is the question that requires
to be considered in this petition. The Chief
Engineer of the respondents is directed to
submit a detailed report .”
17. Later, in terms of an order dated 16.12.2014,
this Court noted the appearance of the Chief Engineer,
BBMP before the Court who submitted that he would look
into the records and make an appropriate survey and
thereafter make suggestions. On a submission made by
the learned counsel for the BDA that the authority had
conducted an aerial survey of the topography of all the
properties with the help of a French Organization before
preparing the master plan, this Court directed that
material be secured from the BDA, which would help the
Chief Engineer to chalk out an alternative to the course of
water other than the Raja Kaluve, which exists. This Court
also recollected the fact that in respect of a storm water
drain running into Parappana Agrahara lake, there was

- 28 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7169
WP No. 40299 of 2014
C/W WP No. 47937 of 2019

HC-KAR

some diversion and therefore it held that if the storm
water drain to Parappana Agrahara lake could be altered
then the same could be done in the instant case also.
Later, in terms of an order dated 16.01.2015, this Court
noticed the submission made by the learned counsel for
the BDA, who stated that the Comprehensive Development
Plan of the year 2007 did not disclose the existence of a
Raja Kaluve in Sy.No.7. However, he stated that the land
in Sy.No.7 was 14 acres 06 guntas of which 27 Guntas
was the ‘A’ kharab and 19 guntas was the ‘B’ Kharab. He
mentioned that the Deputy Commissioner had permitted
the diversion of 11 acres 9.5 guntas which included “A”
Kharab of 27 guntas. It is over this land that the BDA had
permitted the petitioner No.2 in W.P.No.40299/2014 to
put up construction over 09 acres 25 guntas. Therefore,
this Court held, “ it is for the BDA to explain as to how the
Raja Kaluve came into existence in Sy.No.7, as disclosed
in the master plan 2015, while it was not found in the CDP
2007 ”. It also held that the exact location of 19 guntas of

- 29 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7169
WP No. 40299 of 2014
C/W WP No. 47937 of 2019

HC-KAR

‘B’ kharab land in Sy.No.7 was not identified. Therefore,
this Court directed the BDA to answer the query and also
place on record all such material for easy determination of
the boundaries of land measuring 14 acres 06 guntas of
which 11 acres 9.5 guntas was permitted to be used for
non-agricultural commercial activity. The BDA was also
directed to place on record the revenue records such as,
Aakarband, survey tippani (map) of Sy.No.7.
18. In the meanwhile, the petitioners in
W.P.No.47937/2019 challenged the notice issued to them
where this Court granted an interim stay of the notice vide
order dated 06.11.2019.
19. Later, in terms of an order dated 03.11.2022,
this Court noticed a sketch furnished by the learned
counsel appearing for the BBMP which showed the Raja
Kaluve which existed earlier and also the storm water
drain as it exists today over which construction was put up
by the petitioners in W.P.No.40299/2014. The department
of Urban Development was ordered to be arrayed as a

- 30 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7169
WP No. 40299 of 2014
C/W WP No. 47937 of 2019

HC-KAR

respondent. This Court also called for an expert opinion
on the subject. Later, a memo dated 29.11.2022 was filed
by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the relevant portion of
the report at paragraph Nos.6 and 7 reads as follows:
“
6. As per the above table it is seen that
based on the entire catchment area of all
the 04 drains as mentioned above, the
existing drains carrying capacity is less
than what is required as per catchment
area. Hence the present section of drains
existing is insufficient to handle the total
catchment area discharge.
7. Accordingly, the proposed sections of
the drains in the respective drain
alignment 1, 2, 3 & 4 as mentioned in
above table shall have to be provided.”
20. Following the above, this Court passed an order
dated 30.11.2022 which is as follows:
“Learned AGA submits that they
would study the report of B.B.M.P. and
would also consult expert in the field to
suggest the alternate. Submission taken on
record.

- 31 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7169
WP No. 40299 of 2014
C/W WP No. 47937 of 2019

HC-KAR

It is submitted that in this
regard a report of the Controller and
Auditor General of India on Performance
Audit of Management of
Storm Water Drain in Bangalore urban area
has already been submitted to the
Government of Karnataka. Keeping in view
the recommendation made in the said report
learned AGA to submit the report by next date
of hearing.
List these matters on 15.12.2022”
21. Thereafter, on 15.12.2022, taking note of the
orders passed by this Court on 03.11.2022 and
30.11.2022, the State Government constituted an expert
committee to look into the viability of restoring storm
water drains over which construction was put up by the
petitioners. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1
and 2 submitted that a report would be filed shortly. Later,
the State Government passed another order dated
19.02.2025 reconstituting the committee. The committee
then conducted an inspection of the storm water drain on

- 32 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7169
WP No. 40299 of 2014
C/W WP No. 47937 of 2019

HC-KAR

25.11.2022, wherein it identified four major drains, the
details of which are as below:
SI Drain No's Discharge in cumecs
No (Cum/Sec)
Description
(As per
survey
From To
map)
Catchment
area for
this drain
in Sq.kms
Existing
cross
section
of the
drain
Proposed
cross
section
for the
drain
Carried
by the
Existing
drain
Required
as per
catchme-
nt area
3.62
Proposed
as per
catch-
-ment
area
0.165 3.62 3.73 2.00m x
1.95m
(up to
the point
of
merging
with
drain 2)
1 Drain No-
1(Partly
existing on
ground)
Gubbalala
Main road
Junction at
Manthri
Tranquil
and Royal
Palm
Layout
1.80m x
1.70m
(within
the
premises
of Mantri
Tranquil
Apart
-ment)

3.10

2 Drain No-2
(Non
Existing on
ground)
Gubbalala
Main road
Junction at
Manthri
Tranquil
and Royal
Palm
Layout
14.66 14.94 4.00m x
2.50m
(After
the
merging
point of
Drain 1
and
Drain 2)
0.743

0.57 1.80m x
1.50m
3 Drain No-3
(As per
Existing)
Kaveri
Pipeline
Road
Jayanagara
Housing
Society
Junction
3.78 11.25 11.63 3.50m x
2.40m (
Before
merging
with
drain 1)

4 Drain No-4
(As per
existing)
Kanakapu
ra road
(Iskon
Temple
entrance)
Subramany
apura lake
Inlet
0.954
(Cumula-
tive of all
the three
above
drains
plus
additional
10.046)
1.80 m 5.22 16.31 17.44 4.50m x
x 1.90m 2.50m

- 33 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7169
WP No. 40299 of 2014
C/W WP No. 47937 of 2019

HC-KAR

22. A hydrological study of Subrahmanyapura lake
was also conducted by a private entity at the instance of
the respondent Nos.1 and 2, which disclosed the storm
water drains running into the Subrahmanyapura lake
through the land bearing Sy.Nos.7 and 11 of Gubbalala
Village. The entity which conducted the study indicated
that the available cross section for draining water through
the drains was insufficient. This entity seems to have
conducted vast inspection in the land of the petitioners as
well as around the land in Sy.Nos.7 and 11. Thereafter,
the expert committee constituted by the State
Government had also conducted inspection and had come
to the conclusion that drain Nos.3 and 4 which drained
water from the catchment area into Subramanyapura lake
was blocked by the petitioners in W.P.No.40299/2014 and
a report in that regard was placed on record, which
indicate as follows.
:40299/2014 &
“ ಾನ ಉಚ ಾ
ಾಲಯದ ಅ ಸಂ ೆ
47937/2019
ಪ ಕರಣಗೆ ಂಬಂ!"ದಂ#ೆ $$ಎಂ& 'ಾ&(ಯ)*ರುವ

ಮಂ . /ೆವಲಪ0 ರವರು ಮ 1ೆ2ೕರುಾಲು'ೆಯನು4 ಒತು (ವ ಾ7

- 34 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7169
WP No. 40299 of 2014
C/W WP No. 47937 of 2019

HC-KAR

8ಾಂ9ೌಂ; ತ /ೆೋ/ೆ ಮತು ( 9ಾ=ಂ> ತಳಮಹ 7 2A"ರುವ ಕು ತು
.
ಪ ೕ)" ವರ B 2ೕಡಲು ರ D"ರುವ ತ Eರ ಸ A.ಯ ವರ B
:40299/2014
ಾನ ಉಚ ಾ
ಾಲಯದ ಅ ಸಂ ೆ
&47937/2019
ಪ ಕರಣಗೆ ಸಂಬಂ !"ದಂ#ೆ $$ಎಂ& 'ಾ&(ಯ

ಮಂ . ವಸ . ಸಮು Fಾಯದವರು ಮ 1ೆ2ೕರುಾಲು'ೆಯನು4 ಒತು (ವ

ಾ7 8ಾಂ9ೌಂ; ತ /ೆೋ/ೆ ಮತು ( 9ಾ=ಂ> ತಳಮಹ 7 2A"ರುವ
: 205
ಕು ತು ಪ ೕ)" ವರ B 2ೕಡಲು ಸ 8ಾರದ ಆ Hೇಶ ಸಂ ೆ ನಅಇ
2022 :19/02/2025
ಎಂಎ Kಯು B ಾಂಕ ರಂ #ೆ ತ Eರ ಸ A.ಯನು4
,
ರ DಸLಾMದುN OೆಂಗಳPರು ದ Qಣ #ಾಲೂ*ಕು ಉತ (ರಹR Sೋಬ

ಗುಬ TLಾಳ ಾಮದ)* 2A"ರುವ ಮಂ . Uಾಂ=VW ಅ 9ಾXಂ
22/08/2025
:
ಬ EgÀÄªÀ gÁdPÁ®ÄªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAP
À

gÀAzÀÄ $$ಎಂ&, $7ಎ ಅ !8ಾಗ1ೆPಂBೆ ಪ [ೕ\]ೆ
PÀAzÁAiÀÄ
.
ನ /ೆಸLಾMದುN ಈ 8ೆಳಕಂಡಂ#ೆ #ಾಂ.ಕ ವರ Bಯನು4 ಸ 8ಾರ8ೆ_
.
ಸ )*ಸLಾMHೆ
1. , ,
OೆಂಗಳPರು ದ Qಣ #ಾಲೂ*ಕು ಉತ (ರಹR Sೋಬ ಗುಬ TLಾಳ
. 7( ), 9( ) 13( )
ಾಮದ ಸ 'ೆ ನಂ & & ಮತು ( & ರ ಜ Aೕನುಗಳ ಒಟು b
18 -38.50
ಎ ಗುಂ ["(ೕಣದ ಪ Hೇಶದ)* ಮಂ . /ೆವಲಪc
(Mantri
ಸಂ dೆeಯವರು ವಸ . ಅ 9ಾXಂ ಸಮುಚ ಯವನು4
Tranquil) .
2ಾಣ ಾ7ರು#ಾ(fೆ
2.
ಪ 4ತ fಾಜ8ಾಲು'ೆಯು ಾಮ ನ gೆಯಂ#ೆ OೆಂಗಳPರು ದ Qಣ
, , . 12
#ಾಲೂ*ಕು ಉತ (ರಹR Sೋಬ ಗುಬ TLಾಳ ಾಮದ ಸ 'ೆ ನಂ ಂದ
.11, 7, 3, 60
9ಾರಂಭ'ಾM ಸ 'ೆ ನಂ ರ )* ಹ ದು ಸುಬ ಮಣಪiರ 8ೆfೆ
. ,
dೇರುತ(Hೆ ತಹ ೕLಾN0 OೆಂಗಳPರು ದ Qಣ #ಾಲೂ*ಕು ರವರು ದೃ kೕಕ"
. 7
2ೕ7ರುವ ಸ 'ೆ ನ gೆಯಂ#ೆ ಗುಬ TLಾಳ ಾಮದ ಸ 'ೆ ನಂ ರ )*

ಉಪ "eತ[ರುವ fಾಜ 8ಾಲು'ೆಯನು4 ಅನು lೕದ ೆ ಪ /ೆಯHೆ ಪಥ
M/s. Mantri Developers 0-12
ಬದ Lಾn" ರವರು ಗುಂ Uೆ ["(ೕಣದ
.
ಪ Hೇಶವನು4 ಒತು (ವ ಾ7 ಬಹು ಮಹ 7 ಕಟ bಡ 2A"ರು#ಾ(fೆ ಸದ

- 35 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7169
WP No. 40299 of 2014
C/W WP No. 47937 of 2019

HC-KAR

5 (
8ಾಲು'ೆಯು ಸ 'ೆ ನ gೆಯಂ#ೆ Aೕ ಅಗಲ ಇರುತ (Hೆ ಸ 'ೆ ನ gೆ
Annexure-1)
ಲಗ .("Hೆ
3. Mantri
'ಾಸ(ವ'ಾM ಾಮ ನ gೆಯ)*ನ ಪಂ =(ಕರಣದ ಬದ LಾM
tranquil
ಅ 9ಾXಂ ರವರು ತಮ o ಸ V.(ನ ಅಂ Dನ)* ಅಂದ fೆ ಸ 'ೆ
.13 9 1.80
ನಂ ಮತು ( ರ ಎ Lೆೆ SೊಂB8ೊಂಡಂ#ೆ ಸ eಳದ) Aೕ ಅಗಲದ
.
8ಾಲು'ೆಯನು4 ಅ pವೃBqಪ7"ರುವiದನು4 ಗಮ 2ಸLಾMHೆ
4.
ಮಂ . Uಾಂ=VW ಆವರಣದ ) ಹ ಯು.(ರುವ 8ಾಲು'ೆಗಳ ನ gೆಯ)
( Annexure-2) (1)
ಪ . ಲಗ .("Hೆ /ೆrK ಸಂ ೆ ಸ eಳದ)*ರುವಂ#ೆ
,
ಅ pವೃBqHಾರರು 2A"ರುವ 8ಾಲು'ೆ
ಾMದುN ಇದು ಅ 9ಾ Xಂ

ಪ 'ೇಶದ ೇ2ಂದ 9ಾರಂಭ'ಾM 8ಾಂ9ೌಂ; ೋ/ೆ ಅಂ Dನ)*
( ) . (2)
ಒಳ sಾಗದ) ಹ ಯು.(ರುತ(Hೆ /ೆrK ಸಂ ೆ ಾಮ ನ gೆಯ)
,
ಉಪ "eತ[ರುವ 8ಾಲು'ೆ
ಾMದುN ಇದು ಮಂ . Uಾಂ=VW tೕಜ ೆಯ
, .
Sೊರsಾಗದ)ದುN ಇದು ಅ "(ತVದ)ರುವiBಲ ಈ ಪ Hೇಶದ) ಈ ಾಗLೇ
. (3) BWSSB pipe line
ಕಟ bಡಗಳu ಅ pವೃBq
ಾMರುತ('ೆ /ೆrK ಸಂ ೆ
, (1) & (3)
ರ dೆ( ಕ /ೆnಂದ ಬರು .(ದುN /ೆrK ಸಂ ೆ ಜಂ \K ಬ dೇ

8ಾಂ9ೌಂ; ಅಂ Dನ)* ಹ ದು ಅ 9ಾ Xಂ ಆವರಣ Bಂದ Sೊರಬಂದು
(4) .
/ೈK ಸಂ ೆ ರ wೊ#ೆ dೇ ಸುಬ ಮಣಪiರ 8ೆfೆ dೇರುತ(Hೆ
5. Hydraulic data,
$$ಎಂ& ಮತು ( $7ಎ ವ .nಂದ ಸದ ಪ Hೇಶದ
(catchment) (Annexure-3)
ಜಲನಯನ ಪ Hೇಶ ಅ xಾಯನ
(1) & (3)
ಅನು dಾರ /ೆrK ಸಂ ೆ dೇದ ನಂತರ SೆDನ ಪ ಾಣದ

2ೕರು ಬರುವ iದಂದ ಪ ಸು(ತ[ರುವ 8ಾಲು'ೆಯ ಅಳ #ೆMಂತ Sೆಚುವ
.
dೆ\K ಅವಶ ಕ[ರುತ(Hೆ

Xೕಲ_ಂಡ ಅಂಶಗಳ y ೆ4Lೆಯ)* [[ಧ #ಾಂ.ಕ ಅಂಶಗಳನು 4
vÀdÕg À

ಗಮನದ )ಟುb8ೊಂಡು 2ೕರನು4 ಸಮಪ ಕ'ಾM 8ಾಲು'ೆಯ) dಾMಸಲು

ಮಂ . Uಾಂ=VW 8ಾಂ9ೌಂ; ಅಂ Dನ)* ಅಗತ wಾಗ ಲಭ [ರುವiದಂದ
(1.8 X 1.9 )
ಪ ಸು(ತ[ರುವ 8ಾಲು'ೆ Aೕ Aೕ ಅನು 4 ಾLಾ ಖ fಾ$ನ
5
["(ೕಣ8ೆ_ ಸ ಾ ಾಂತರ'ಾದ ಅಂದ fೆ Aೕ ಅಗಲದ /ೈK ಅನು 4

- 36 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7169
WP No. 40299 of 2014
C/W WP No. 47937 of 2019

HC-KAR

ಅ pವೃBHಾರರು ತಮ o ಸ Vಂತ 'ೆಚದ)* ಅಗ )ೕಕರಣೊಸಲು
.”
ಸೂ DಸಬಹುHಾMರುತ(Hೆ
23. In the said report, the details of the four major
drains running through the aforesaid survey numbers is
also mentioned. The private entity was also of the opinion
that the available drains are insufficient to drain the water
from the catchment area. Long after these surveys were
conducted and long after it was found that the
construction put up over the storm water drain by the
petitioners obstructed the free flow of water, the
petitioners in W.P.No.40299/2014 seem to have filed
representation dated 12.12.2025 before the Deputy
Commissioner to find out a practical solution that respects
both public infrastructure requirements and the rights of
the lawful occupants.
24. The learned counsel for the petitioners in
W.P.No.40299/2014 submitted that the Deputy
Commissioner should be directed to find out a viable

- 37 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7169
WP No. 40299 of 2014
C/W WP No. 47937 of 2019

HC-KAR

alternative so as to protect the public interest and also the
interest of the members of the petitioner No.1.
25. I have considered the submissions of the
learned counsel for the petitioners in both the petitions as
well as the submissions of the learned counsel for the
respondents 1 and 2. I have also perused the reports
submitted by the survey authorities and all the materials
placed on record.
26. A public interest litigation was filed before this
Court in W.P.No.31394/2009 to remove the encroachment
over storm water drains in the City of Bengaluru. An
affidavit was filed by BBMP stating that it would take steps
to remove the encroachment, following which the writ
petition was disposed off on 04-08-2011 directing action
to be initiated for removal of the encroachments. The
Deputy Commissioner in terms of an order dated 28-02-
2013 deputed surveyors for surveying and identifying the
storm water drains in the city of Bengaluru. Following this,
the Chief Engineer, BBMP Storm water drains passed an

- 38 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7169
WP No. 40299 of 2014
C/W WP No. 47937 of 2019

HC-KAR

order dated 02-03-2013 deputing the Assistant Executive
Engineer of Bommanahalli zone to conduct an inspection
along with the surveyors. Accordingly, an inspection was
conducted in Sy.No.7 of Gubbalalu and it was found that
petitioner No.2 in W.P.No.40299/14 had closed the storm
water drain running through Sy.No.7. It was also noticed
that a 5 feet drain existed at places but was obstructed at
two places. It also appears that the drain in Sy.No.11 was
identified and poles were placed identifying the storm
water drain. It is in the backdrop of the above that
notices were issued for removal of the encroachment over
the storm water drains, which are challenged in these writ
petitions. The petitioners have replied to these notices and
before the same could be considered by the Municipal
Corporation, the petitioners have approached this Court
and have kept an innocuous litigation alive for over 11
years. The petitioners in W.P.No.47937/2019 have taken
advantage of an interim order granted as well as the delay
in disposal of this petition and changed the nature of the

- 39 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7169
WP No. 40299 of 2014
C/W WP No. 47937 of 2019

HC-KAR

land in Sy.No.11 of Gubbalala by allowing its members to
put up construction.
27. The village map of Gubbalala shows that a
storm water drain runs through Sy.Nos.7 and 11 and
empties into the Subramanyapura lake. The orders of
conversion of land in Sy.Nos.7 and 11 shows that the
kharab land was reserved to the State government for all
times to come. The petitioners in both the petitions have
not placed on record the conversion sketch of both the
above survey numbers that were converted for non-
agriculture residential use. They have also not placed on
record the RTC extracts of both the survey numbers. Be
that as it may, it is undisputed that an extent of 0-19
guntas is the ‘B’ kharab deducted towards the storm water
drain running through Sy.No.7 while 0-18 guntas is
deducted towards the storm water drain running through
Sy.No.11. The petitioners in W.P.No.47937/2019 admit
that the storm water drain exists in Sy.No.11 but they
contend that,

- 40 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7169
WP No. 40299 of 2014
C/W WP No. 47937 of 2019

HC-KAR

“ xxx

3. £ÀªÀÄä §qÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ°è £ÀqÉ¹gÀÄªÀ ¸ÀªÉðAiÀÄ £ÀPÉëAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹zÀgÉ
CzÀgÀ°è gÁeÁPÁ®ÄªÉAiÀÄÄ £ÀªÀÄä §qÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ ºÀ®ªÁgÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß
ºÁzÀÄºÉÆÃzÀAvÉ vÀ¥ÁàV vÉÆÃj¸ÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀgÉ ªÁ¸ÀÛªÀzÀ°è ºÀ¼ÉAiÀÄ
gÁeÁPÁ®ÄªÉAiÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä §qÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ »A¢£À §¢AiÀÄ°è ºÁzÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ.
CzÀÄ FUÀ®Æ ¸ÀÄªÀåªÀ¹ÜvÀªÁVzÀÄÝ £ÀªÀÄUÉ EzÀÄªÀgÉUÀÆ ªÀÄ¼É
¥ÀæªÁºÀUÀ½AzÀ gÀQë¸ÀÄwÛzÉ. £ÀªÀÄä §qÁªÀuÉUÉ EzÀÄªÀgÉUÀÆ £ÉgÉ
ºÁªÀ½¬ÄAzÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ ºÁ¤AiÀiÁVgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è.
Underlining by the Court

( )

xxx

6. £ÀªÀÄä §qÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄzsÀå¨sÁUÀzÀ°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ PÁ®ÄªÉ E®èzÉÃ
EgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ¯ÉÃ ©.r.J. DUÀ°Ã ©.©.JA.¦. AiÉÄÃ DUÀ° £ÀªÀÄUÉ
§qÁªÀuÉ ¤«Äð¸À®Ä ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄ£É PÀnÖPÉÆ¼Àî®Ä C£ÀÄªÀÄw ¤ÃrgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
CzÀÆ C®èzÉ vÁªÀÅ £À«ÄäAzÀ ¥Àæw ªÀµÀð PÀAzÁAiÀÄªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÀ
¥ÀqÉAiÀÄÄwÛ¢ÝÃj. £À«ÄäAzÀ ®PÀëUÀlÖ¯É ¨ÉlgÉäAmï ±ÀÄ®ÌªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÀ
¥ÀqÉ¢gÀÄwÛÃj. DzÀÝjAzÀ Cw ¸ÀÄAzÀgÀªÁV ¤«Äð¸À®ànÖgÀÄªÀ £ÀªÀÄä
§qÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ PÁgÀtPÀÆÌ «gÀÆ¥ÀUÉÆ½¸À¨ÉÃr.

7. EwÛÃZÉUÉ vÁªÀÅ £ÀqÉ¹gÀÄªÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀPÉëAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹zÀgÉ CzÀgÀ°è vÁªÀÅ
(¸ÀªÉð £ÀqÉ¹gÀÄªÀªÀgÀÄ) ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV ¸ÀªÉð £ÀqÉ¸ÀzÉ ¥ÁæaÃ£À PÁ®zÀ
UÁæªÀÄ£ÀPÉëAiÀÄ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É MAzÀÄ CAzÁf£À ¥ÀæPÁgÀ PÁ®ÄªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
UÀÄgÀÄw¹zÀAwzÉ. CzÀgÀ°è ºÁQgÀÄªÀ µÀgÁzÀ°è CzÀ£ÀÄß
£ÀªÀÄÆ¢¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. CzÀÆ C®èzÉ FUÁUÀ¯ÉÃ £ÀªÀÄä §qÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ
»A§¢AiÀÄ°è ºÁzÀÄ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄªÀ PÁ®ÄªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀt£ÉUÉ
Underlining by the Court

vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆÃArgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. ( )

8.
gÁeÁPÁ®ÄªÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄRå GzÉÝÃ±À ªÀÄ¼ÉAiÀÄ ¤ÃgÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV ºÀjzÀÄ
PÉgÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÉÃgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ £ÉgÉ §AzÁUÀ ªÀÄ¼É ¤ÃgÀÄ ¸ÀgÁUÀªÁV
ºÀjzÀÄ ªÀÄ£É ªÀÄoÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ d£À eÁ£ÀÄªÁgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¤Ãj£À°è
PÉÆaÑºÉÆÃUÀzÀAvÉ vÀqÉAiÀÄÄªÀÅzÀÄ. F JgÀqÀÆ PÉ®¸ÀªÀ£ÀÄß FUÁUÀ¯ÉÃ
EgÀÄªÀ PÁ®ÄªÉ ¸ÀªÀÄxÀðªÁV ¤¨sÁ¬Ä¸ÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ. EzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä §qÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ
»A¨sÁUÀzÀ°ègÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ AiÀiÁjUÀÆ vÉÆAzÀgÉAiÀiÁVgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ
§qÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄzsÀå¨sÁUÀ®¢è ºÁzÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄªÀ PÁ®ÄªÉ¬ÄAzÀ
C£ÀÄPÀÆ®vÉUÀ½VAvÀ C£Á£ÀÄPÀÆ®vÉAiÉÄÃ ºÉZÀÄÑ. zÀAiÀÄ«lÄÖ F CA±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß
Underlining by the Court
”
¥ÀjUÀtÂ¹. ( )

- 41 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7169
WP No. 40299 of 2014
C/W WP No. 47937 of 2019

HC-KAR

28. The petitioners in W.P.No.40299/2014 contend
that there was no mention of the storm water drain in the
CDP-1995 and that BDA had sanctioned a development
plan and that they have constructed multi dwelling
residential apartments over the land in Sy.No.7 of
Gubbalala. They however have not produced the RTC of
Sy.No.7 of Gubbalala. They also have not disputed the fact
that within their project, they have maintained a drain that
measures 1.80 meters x 1.70 meters and which exits their
compound.
29. In so far as Sy.No.7 of Gubbalala is concerned,
it measures 14 acres 06 guntas including ‘A’ kharab of 27
guntas and ‘B’ kharab of 19 guntas. Out of the above, an
area measuring 11 acres 9.5 guntas including ‘A’ kharab of
0-27 guntas was converted for non-agricultural purpose,
where petitioner No.2 in W.P.No.40299/2014 is permitted
to put up multi-dwelling residential units. Likewise, the
petitioner in W.P.No.47937/2019 is an association of the
residents of a layout formed in Sy.No.11 of Gubbalala

- 42 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7169
WP No. 40299 of 2014
C/W WP No. 47937 of 2019

HC-KAR

village which measures 08 acres and 18 guntas and
‘B’ kharab land measuring 0-18 guntas, where a layout of
sites is formed and is approved by the local panchayat,
though it is not known how the panchayat could have done
so. There is no mention in the layout plan about the
storm water drain running through Sy.No.11, though the
petitioners all claim that it runs behind the back of their
layout. Be that as it may, as far as the ‘B’ kharab land is
concerned, there can be no gainsaying the fact that it
vested in the State Government in view of Section 67 of
the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, ‘the Act,
1964’) and is vested in the Municipal Corporation by virtue
of Section 174 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act,
1976.
30. The petitioner No.2 in W.P.No.40299/2014 has
developed a residential complex and has also provided a
drain measuring 1.80 meters x 1.70 meters to drain out
rain water which is identified as drain-I. It has closed
down a drain identified as drain-II, while drain-III

- 43 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7169
WP No. 40299 of 2014
C/W WP No. 47937 of 2019

HC-KAR

measuring 1.80 meters x 1.50 meters is existing from
Kaveri Pipeline road to Jayanagara Housing Society
Junction. Similarly, drain-IV from Kanakapura road to
Subramanyapura lake measuring 1.80 meters x 1.90
meters exists. Neither petitioner No.2 in
W.P.No.40299/2014 nor the petitioner No.1 in
W.P.No.47937/2019 have any right, title or interest over
the ‘B’ kharab land and it is also not their case that they
have perfected their right over it.
31. On the other hand, their contention is that
(i) the BDA had sanctioned a plan which did not show any
storm water drain, (ii) that there is no mention about the
storm water drain in the CDP-1995 and hence the
respondents cannot now turn around and claim that there
is a storm water drain that is closed by the petitioners. In
support of this contention, they have highly relied on the
judgment passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in
Sobha Developers Limited Vs. Bruhat Bangalore
Mahanagara Palike and others reported in 2012 SCC

- 44 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7169
WP No. 40299 of 2014
C/W WP No. 47937 of 2019

HC-KAR

OnLine Kar 2679 . Though this is a catchy argument, the
petitioner No.2 in W.P.No.40299/2014 has not denied the
fact that it has developed a 1.80 meters drain to drain out
the storm water from its property into Subramanyapura
lake and blocked drain-II that drains water from the
surrounding areas. On the contrary, its tongue in cheek
argument is that the BDA has permitted to put up
construction and therefore it cannot be held responsible.
A perusal of the judgment passed in Sobha Developer’s
case referred supra , merely mentioned “ once the master
plan is prepared indicating the existence of roads, drains,
streets, etc. and particularly the Planning Authority at an
undisputed point of time had prepared a sketch of the
lands wherein no passage of nala in the middle of the
property or the existence of the pathway therein was
shown, it is not open for the Corporation at such a belated
stage to raise an objection solely based on the village map
to contend that the existing nala was deviated by the
petitioner ”. However, the Court contemporaneously held

- 45 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7169
WP No. 40299 of 2014
C/W WP No. 47937 of 2019

HC-KAR

that “ the Corporation undoubtedly has to ensure that the
existing nalas and drains have to be kept intact and no
encroachment is made by any private parties on the same.
They have every right to prevent the obstruction to be
caused for free flow of water in the nala/drain. The
existence of the drain in the instant case is also evident
from the master plan. The survey sketch now prepared
also discloses that the nala is in existence and the same is
constructed on the sites by the petitioner as it passes by
the side of the petitioner’s construction. If the width of
the nala is reduced only at the place where the nalas
passes through the properties of the petitioner and if the
Corporation on expert’s opinion finds that the reduced
passage would cause flooding in the area and in and
around, then the best course is to find a solution to the
problem by engaging the petitioners and the owners of the
area over which the nala passes for widening the nala in
the interest of their own safety and security ”.

- 46 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7169
WP No. 40299 of 2014
C/W WP No. 47937 of 2019

HC-KAR

32. At this stage, it is relevant to note that a
master plan under Section 12 of the Karnataka Town and
Country Planning Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act, 1961’) is a
vision document prepared to regulate future land use in a
planning area. There is no mention in Section 12 of the
Act, 1961 that the master plan should refer the water
bodies, high level channels, storm water drains etc. All it
refers to is the future land use, the present land use,
complete street pattern and areas reserved for public
utilities, future development, etc. In this regard, it is
profitable to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and another vs. U.P.
Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Ors. reported in 2024
SCC OnLine SC 3767 , where it was held that “ Master
plan or the zonal development cannot be just individual
centric but also must be devised keeping in mind the
larger interest of the public and the environment. Unless
the administration is streamlined and the persons
entrusted with the implementation of the act are held

- 47 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7169
WP No. 40299 of 2014
C/W WP No. 47937 of 2019

HC-KAR

accountable for their failure in performing statutory
obligations, violations of this nature would go unchecked
and become more rampant. If the officials are let scot-
free, they will be emboldened and would continue to turn a
nelson’s eye to all the illegalities resulting in derailment of
all planned projects and pollution, disorderly traffic,
security risks, etc. ” The finding in Sobha Developer’s ,
case referred supra cannot be treated as a binding
precedent. For a judgment to be binding, it should deal
with an issue with reference to the law on the subject and
a casual statement made in the course of the judgment
would at the most be an obiter dicta which has no
precedential value. In this regard, it is apposite to rely on
the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Union of India
and Others Vs. Dhanwanti Devi and Others reported
in (1996) 6 SCC 44, wherein it was held as:
“9. ….. The only thing in a judge’s decision
binding a party is the principle upon which
the case is decided and for this reason it
is important to analyse a decision and
isolate from it the ratio decidendi.

- 48 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7169
WP No. 40299 of 2014
C/W WP No. 47937 of 2019

HC-KAR

According to the well-settle theory of
precedents, every decision contains three
basic postulates – (i) findings of material
facts, direct and inferential. An inferential
finding of facts is the inference which the
Judge draws from the direct, or
perceptible facts; (ii) statement of the
principles of law applicable to the legal
problems disclosed by the facts; and (iii)
judgment based on the combined effect of
the above.“

33. The judgment of the co-ordinate Bench in
Sobha Developer’s case referred supra , cannot therefore
be of any binding values as it did not state the provisons
of law applicable to the legal facts and the solution to the
problem based on statutory provisions. As a matter of
fact, once the land is vested in the State Government by
virtue of Section 67 of the Act, 1964 such vesting cannot
be divested by the BDA by not showing it in the master
plan. This trend if allowed would set a bad precedent for
all times to come as it would be handy to developers and
the real estate mafia to strong arm the law and collude
with the planning authorities to efface these arteries of

- 49 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7169
WP No. 40299 of 2014
C/W WP No. 47937 of 2019

HC-KAR

water bodies in the master plan and obtain development
plan and construct buildings over drains, etc. As a matter
of fact, the department of revenue is not a member of the
BDA and therefore any stipulation in the master plan
prepared by BDA is not binding upon the Department of
Revenue. Therefore, the reliance placed by the learned
counsel for the petitioners on the judgment of Sobha
Developer’s case referred supra is of no consequence.
34. As a matter of fact, the petitioner in
W.P.No.40299/2014 has mentioned in the writ petition
that “ In fact there is a small portion of kharab land which
the petitioner no.2 is attempting to get it regularized ”,
meaning thereby that it knew about the existence of the
kharab, as, even prior to the petitioner No.2 purchasing
Sy.No.7 from its owner, the ‘A’ kharab land was
regularized in favour of the owner. The very fact that the
petitioner No.2 in W.P.No.40299/2014 has provided a
drain within its property makes it more than evident that
the kharab existed and was deducted towards the storm

- 50 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7169
WP No. 40299 of 2014
C/W WP No. 47937 of 2019

HC-KAR

water drain. The contention that the storm water drain
was not shown in the master plan is inconsequential as
once the land is vested in the State Government, unless it
is shown that rights are created in respect of that land, no
one including the petitioners can claim any right, title or
interest over it even if a master plan does not reflect that.
35. The topography of the area which is evident
from the hydrological report conducted by the Expert
Committee shows that four drains carry the storm water
from the catchment area in Gubbalala village into the
Subramanyapura lake. The drain-I has the catchment area
around Mantri Tranquil spread over 0.165 sq.k.m., drain-II
has a catchment area of 0.743 sq. k.m. and they merge
into drain-III which has a cathcment area of 0.57 sq. k.m.
which meets drain-IV which has catchment area of 0.954
sq.k.m. Drain-I is in existence and runs through the
property of Mantri Tranquil and measures 1.80 meters x
1.70 meters, while drain-II is closed by Mantri Tranquil.
The required drain for these two drains is 2.00 meters x

- 51 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7169
WP No. 40299 of 2014
C/W WP No. 47937 of 2019

HC-KAR

1.95 meters and 4.00 meters x 2.50 meters. As regards
drain-III, it measures 1.80 meters x 1.50 meters and the
required drain size is 3.50 meters x 2.40 meters and
drain-IV measuring 1.80 meters x 1.90 meters as against
the required drain size of 4.50 meters x 2.50 meters.
Assuming that 3.62 cumec of water in drain–I and 14.66
cumec of water in drain-II is blocked or is not allowed to
flow, the water will stagnate in the surrounding areas
leading to loose soil, damaging foundation and a host of
other problems including sanitation affecting the health of
the residents.
36. Yet another common sense fact that we cannot
ignore is that regardless whether the storm water drain is
mentioned in the CDP or not, when it rains, water flows
from the higher level to the lower level and when there is
a deluge, it takes with it, whatever comes in its way or
inundate other low lying areas. Water is the elixir of all
life on this planet and human beings blessed with wisdom
have devised means to capture and store it for proper use

- 52 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7169
WP No. 40299 of 2014
C/W WP No. 47937 of 2019

HC-KAR

by forming tanks at a lower level so that the water from
the higher level drains into it. In order to ensure that the
arteries of this water bodies are kept sacrosanct, the
British excluded them from assessment and gave us a blue
print etched in stone so that they are maintained for
posterity. We have to thank the British for the

topographical survey and the great Trigonometrical survey
of India which they did on donkeys back using basic
equipments and giving us a document that continues to be
a beacon for survey and revenue administration for over a
hundred years. It is unfortunate that despite the
technological advancement, we are unable to conduct a
second general survey in the State of Karnataka. Following
the demarcation of these public utilities, the legislature
has declared in Section 67 of the Act, 1964 that they shall
vest in the State absolutely and free from all
encumbrances. When an area is included within the limits
of a planning authority and master plan is to be introduced
for such area, the reference point is always a village map

- 53 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7169
WP No. 40299 of 2014
C/W WP No. 47937 of 2019

HC-KAR

and nothing else. The proposed development should be
around what exists and not by damaging or systematically
excluding public utilities, so as to confer largesse on the
owner of the property over which such public utilities exist.
37. Every Bengalurean was of the impression that
there can be no flooding in the city of Bengaluru, though
several low lying areas where the poor lived were
frequently inundated. The administration woke up only
when an upscale/rich locality where the rich and famous
lived came under water and several vehicles worth
hundreds of crores were found floating. In the instant
case, this Court has conducted several exercises to find
out whether there is encroachment over the storm water
drain and every exercise has shown that there is
encroachment.
38. A map of the area placed on record by the
Expert Committee constituted by the State Government as
well as the building plan filed by the petitioners, go to
show, that if the storm water drain as it ran through

- 54 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7169
WP No. 40299 of 2014
C/W WP No. 47937 of 2019

HC-KAR

Sy.Nos.7 and 11 is preserved, then it would be difficult for
the owners of the respective properties to develop them as
it would cut through their properties and they may have to
set apart the applicable buffer. The fact that the course of
these drains have been altered is evident from the report
of the expert committee. While the Mantri Tranquil has
pushed the drain-I to the edge of its property, it has
closed off drain-II. Therefore, the involvement of erstwhile
owners of Sy.No.7 in effacing the storm water drain from
the master plan in collusion with the officials of the BDA
cannot be ruled out.
39. Having regard to the fact that the State
Government, Municipal Corporation as well as this Court
have taken all possible steps to find out whether the storm
water drains can be restored without causing any damage
to the construction put up, this Court is of the opinion that
the Municipal Corporation need not consider the reply
submitted by the petitioners to the notices which are
impugned in these petitions.

- 55 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7169
WP No. 40299 of 2014
C/W WP No. 47937 of 2019

HC-KAR

40. Having regard to the fact that Subramanyapura
lake is a live lake and Gubbalala village has a catchment
area of nearly a square k.m., in the interest of the other
general public residing in the area, this Court considers it
appropriate to provide an opportunity to the petitioners
herein to suggest an alternative course for restoration of
the storm water drains. Failing this, the Municipal
Corporation is directed to proceed to remove the
constructions put up over the storm water drains and
restore them, and if possible by erecting RCC retaining
walls of the drain for the desired size.
ORDER
(i) The writ petitions are dismissed.
(ii) In view of the report of the Expert
Committee, the reply filed by the petitioners to
the notices issued by the BBMP, which are
impugned herein, are rejected.

- 56 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7169
WP No. 40299 of 2014
C/W WP No. 47937 of 2019

HC-KAR

(iii) The BBMP is directed to re-inspect the
drains on 28.02.2026 and if the petitioners
provide an alternative course, the BBMP shall re-
consider diverting the course of the drains and
ensure free flow of water into Subramanyapura
lake. While doing so, the BBMP shall also ensure
that adjacent land owners are not disturbed and
no inconvenience is caused to them.
(iv) It is made clear that if the petitioners
do not provide an alternative course for the
drains to be laid within 15 days from
28.02.2026, the BBMP shall take necessary
measures to restore the drains as per the report
of the Expert Committee constituted by the State
Government.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ)
JUDGE

BL
List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1
Ct:VK