Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike vs V KAMALA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 12 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026

PRESENT


THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S.BHARATH KUMAR


WRIT APPEAL NO. 529 OF 2023 (LB-BMP)
C/W
WRIT APPEAL NO. 612 OF 2023 (LB-BMP)

IN WA No. 529/2023

BETWEEN:

1. V. CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
S/O LATE M. VENKATARAMAIAH
RESIDING AT NO.9/1A
GROVER ROAD
SARVAGNANAGAR
COX TOWN
BENGALURU-560 005

2. V. VASUDEV
SINCE DEAD BY LR'S

2(A) GEETHA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
W/O LATE.V.VASUDEV

2(B) V.ZAINKAR
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
D/O LATE V. VASUDEV

2(C) V.VINAY
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS










Digitally
signed by
PAVITHRA N
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka

2

S/O LATE V. VASUDEV

ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO. 9/1
GROVER ROAD
SARVAGNANAGAR
COX TOWN
BENGALURU-560 005

3. V.VINAYAKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
S/O. LATE M. VENKATARAMAIAH
RESIDING AT NO.9
GROVER ROAD
SARVAGNANAGAR
COX TOWN
BENGALURU-560 005

4. SRI SATHYANARAYANA EDUCATIONAL TRUST
(FORMERLY A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE
KARNATAKA SOCIETIES
REGISTRATION ACT, 1960 AND
SUBSEQUENT THERETO CONVERTED IN TO A TRUST
UNDER INDIAN TRUST ACT)
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.10/4
RAMAMURTHYNAGAR MAIN ROAD
BANASWADI
BENGALURU-560 033
REPRESENTED BY ITS FOUNDER SECRETARY
MR.T. VENUGOPAL
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. AJOY KUMAR PATIL, ADV. FOR
SRI. GANESH BHAT Y. H., ADV.)
AND:

1. V. KAMALA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
W/O LATE M. VENKATESH

3


2. SHRI. M. VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
S/O LATE M. MUNISWAMAPPA

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.105
DAMODAR MUDALIAR STREET
ULSOOR, BENGALURU-560 008

3. BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGAR PALIKE
BENGALURU-560 001
BY ITS COMMISSIONER

4. THE COMMISIONER
BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGAR PALKE
N.R. SQUARE
BENGALURU-560 001

5. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGAR PALKE
MARUTHI SEVANAGARA
SUB-DIVISION
BENGALURU-560 033

…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.M.ARUN, ADV. FOR CAVEATOR/R1 & R2;
SRI. B.S.SATHYANANDA, ADV. FOR R3-R5)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 R/W ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE WRIT
APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.04.2023 IN
WRIT PETITION No.14685/2014 (LB-BBMP) PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE
WRIT PETITION No.14685/2014 (LB-BBMP).

4

IN WA NO.612/2023

BETWEEN:

1. BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
BENGALURU - 560001
BY ITS COMMISSIONER

2. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE
BENGALURU - 560001

3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
MARUTHI SEVANAGARA
SUB DIVISION
BENGALURU - 560033
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SATYANAND B S, ADV.)

AND:

1. V. KAMALA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
W/O LATE M VENKATESH

2. SHRI M VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
S/O LATE M MUNISWAMAPPA

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.105
DAMODAR MUDALIAR STREET
ULSOOR, BENGALURU - 560008

3. V CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
S/O LATE M VENKATARAMAIAH

5

RESIDING AT NO 9/1A
GROVER ROAD
SARVAGNANAGAR
COX TOWN BENGALURU - 560005

4. V VASUDEV
SINCE DEAD BY LRS

4(A) MRS GEETHA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
W/O LATE V VASUDEV

4(B) V ZAINKAR
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
D/O LATE V VASUDEV

4(C) V VINAY
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
S/O LATE V VASUDEV

ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.9/1
GROVER ROAD
SARVAGNANAGAR
COX TOWN
BENGALURU - 560005

7. V VIJAYAKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
S/O LATE M VENKATARAMAIAH
RESIDING AT NO.9
GROVER ROAD
SARVAGNANAGAR
COX TOWN
BENGALURU - 560005

8. SRI SATYANARAYANA EDUCATIONAL TRUST
(FORMERLY A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE
KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960

6

AND SUBSEQUENT THERETO CONVERTED IN TO A
TRUST UNDER INDIAN TRUST ACT)
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.10/4
RAMAMURTHYNAGAR MAIN ROAD
BANASWADI
BENGALURU - 560003
REPRESENTED BY ITS FOUNDER SECRETARY
MR T VENUGOPAL
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ARUN B M., ADV. FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. AJAY KUMAR PATIL &
SRI. GANESH BHAT Y.H., ADV. FOR R3, R4(A-C), R5 & R6)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT RULES, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW
THIS WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED DIRECTIONS
AGAINST THESE APPELLANTS AS PER PARA NOS.24.16 AND
PORTION OF THE PARA NO.25.1.ii, (BBMP IS ALSO DIRECTED TO
MAINTAIN THE SAID PASSAGE/STREET AND ENTER THE SAME IN
ITS PROPERTY REGISTER) IN ORDERS DATED 20/04/2023,
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.14685/2014
(LB-BBMP), AND CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION
NO.14685/2014 (LB-BBMP), TO THE EXTENT OF THE WRIT
PETITION PRAYER i.e., IN SO FAR AS IMPLEMENTATION OF
ANNEXURES-U AND V, DATED 13/10/2011 AND 18/11/2011,

RESPECTIVELY.
THESE WRIT APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 29.10.2026 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN
J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S.BHARATH KUMAR

7

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
Writ Appeal No.529/2023 is preferred by respondents
No.4 to 7 in the writ petition and Writ Appeal No.612/2023
is preferred by Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (‘BBMP’
for short) and its officers challenging the order dated
20.04.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ
Petition No.14685/2014 (LB-BBMP), whereby the writ
petition filed by respondents No.1 and 2 herein was allowed,
directing the BBMP to implement the notice/order dated
13.10.2011 and 18.11.2011, remove the compound wall and
gate constructed across the passage measuring 40 feet ×
159 feet, keep the said passage free from encroachments,
maintain the same and enter it in its property register.
2. We have heard Shri. Ajoy Kumar Patil, learned
counsel appearing for the appellants in Writ Appeal
No.529/2023 and for respondents No.3 to 6 in Writ Appeal
No.612/2023; Shri. B.M. Arun, learned counsel appearing for
respondents No.1 and 2 in both the appeals and Shri. B.S
Sathyananda, learned counsel appearing for respondents

8

No.3 to 5 in Writ Appeal No.529/2023 and for the appellants
in Writ Appeal No.612/2023.
3. The property bearing Corporation No.10, situated
at Ramamurthy Nagar Main Road, Banaswadi, Bengaluru,
measuring about 49,613 sq.ft. originally belonged to one
Shri. M. Venkataramaiah. During his lifetime, he executed
two registered Gift Deeds and a Will dated 22.04.2004,
whereby different portions of the property were gifted to his
daughters and bequeathed to his sons. Under the registered
Gift Deed dated 22.04.2004, a portion of the property was
gifted to his daughter, Smt. V. Kamala, respondent No.1
herein, while the remaining portions were bequeathed in
favour of his sons, namely Shri. V. Chandrashekar, Shri. V.
Vasudev and Shri. V. Vijayakumar, who are appellants No.1
to 3 in Writ Appeal No.529/2023. A passage measuring 40
feet × 159 feet, leading to Ramamurthy Nagar Main Road,
was shown in the documents relating to the respective
properties.
4. Pursuant to the aforesaid transactions, BBMP by
Special Notice dated 04.01.2006, effected separate khatas in

9

respect of the respective portions: No.10, 10/3 and 10/4 for
the sons and No.10/1 and 10/2 for the daughters. The
passage measuring 40 feet × 159 feet was not included in
any of these numbers. Building plans were sanctioned by
BBMP, including the plan dated 30.06.2009 for a school and
hostel building on No.10/4. Appellants No.1 to 3 leased their
properties to appellant No.4, an educational institution,
which runs New Baldwin Residential School. Respondent
No.1 gifted a 50% undivided share in her property to her
husband - respondent No.2, on 18.04.2009. Thereafter,
BBMP assigned No.10/5 to the rear portion and sanctioned a
plan for it on 23.11.2010 on the basis of access through the
passage. In January 2011, appellant No.4 enclosed the
passage with a compound wall and gate for the safety of the
students and hostel inmates.

5. On 21.02.2011, respondents No.1 and 2
lodged a complaint before the Commissioner, BBMP alleging
encroachment upon a public road by construction of the
compound wall and gate. Pursuant thereto, BBMP issued a
notice dated 03.03.2011 calling upon the appellants No.1 to

10

3 to submit their explanation. By reply dated 08.03.2011,
they contended that the passage was a private passage
forming part of the property of their father, Shri. M.
Venkataramaiah, and was intended for ingress and egress to
their respective properties. Thereafter, BBMP issued an
endorsement dated 20.05.2011 stating that the 40 feet
road, which respondent No.1 described as a passage to her
property, was the subject matter of a joint family dispute
which BBMP had no jurisdiction to adjudicate, and advising
the parties, to approach the competent Civil Court to decide
which of the property owners alone could use the said road.
6. Subsequently, BBMP issued a notice dated
13.10.2011 concerning the construction of the compound
wall and gate across the disputed passage, stating that the
Legal Advisor had instructed that action be taken and calling
upon appellants No.1 to 3 to immediately remove the iron
gate and compound wall built across the 40 feet road
relating to property No.10/1, 10/3, 10/4, 10/5 and 10, and
to explain why cement concrete had been laid on the said
road without the prior approval of BBMP. A further

11

communication dated 18.11.2011 was issued by the BBMP
recording that appellants No.1 to 3 had not complied with
the notice, and seeking police protection from the BMTF so
that BBMP could remove the compound wall, security
building and iron gate. In the meanwhile, the educational
Institution instituted a Civil Suit as O.S.No.7544/2011
before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru, against the BBMP
seeking permanent injunction against interference with its
possession and enjoyment of the property. The said suit
came to be decreed by judgment dated 29.11.2012,
permanently restraining BBMP and its officials from
interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. Thereafter,
respondents No.1 and 2 instituted Writ Petition
No.14685/2014 seeking a direction to BBMP to implement
the notice and communication dated 13.10.2011 and
18.11.2011 and remove the compound wall and gate.

7. The writ petition was initially dismissed by
order dated 08.11.2017, relegating the parties to the
remedy before the competent Civil Court. The said order

12

was subsequently recalled by order dated 23.02.2021 in
Review Petition No.155/2019 and the writ petition was
restored for consideration. During the pendency of the writ
petition, BBMP conducted a spot inspection on 30.09.2021,
and the spot mahazar recorded that no BBMP road was
found on the property, that no road ID was found on
verification of the road history website and that the property
was found to be private property. BBMP placed on record the
spot mahazar, road identification map and photographs.
BBMP also filed an affidavit dated 14.01.2022, asserting that
the disputed passage had not been relinquished in favour of
BBMP and did not vest in it, and produced the building plan
sanctioned on 30.06.2009 for the school and hostel building.
dated 21.04.2022

8. Subsequently, an affidavit was filed
on behalf of BBMP in April 2022 expressing willingness to
implement the earlier notice and communication within three
weeks, pursuant to which directions were issued for
compliance by order dated 21.04.2022. The said directions
were challenged in Writ Appeal No.407/2022 and, by order
dated 25.08.2022, the Division Bench interfered with the

13

direction and directed the writ petition be considered afresh
on merits, after hearing all the parties, while retaining the
affidavit on record.
9. The learned Single Judge, upon consideration of
the pleadings and material on record, noticed that BBMP had
taken inconsistent stands regarding the nature of the
disputed passage. Though BBMP had initially issued notices
for removal of the alleged encroachment, it subsequently
contended that the passage was private property which had
not been relinquished in its favour. The learned Single Judge
further notice that BBMP, while effecting khata bifurcation,
assigning separate municipal numbers and sanctioning
building plans in favour of the respective parties, had
recognised the existence of the passage measuring 40 feet
× 159 feet as a means of access to their properties and that
betterment charges had been paid only on 43,253.75 sq.ft.
out of the total extent of 49,613 sq.ft. leaving out the
passage measuring about 6,360 sq.ft. The stand of the
BBMP that the passage had not been handed over to it
under a Relinquishment Deed was a dishonest stand.

14

10. Referring to Section 17 of the Karnataka Town
and Country Planning Act, 1961 and Section 505 of the
Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, the learned
Single Judge held that, though no permission for subdivision
had been obtained from the Planning Authority, BBMP had
nevertheless effected khata bifurcation and sanctioned
building plans by recognising the passage. It was held that
the actions undertaken by BBMP in the year 2006 need not
be disturbed at that stage, but were required to be
construed harmoniously with the statutory provisions. The
learned Single Judge further held that BBMP could not
disclaim its responsibility to maintain the passage merely
because no registered Relinquishment Deed had been
executed in its favour. It was also observed that the passage
did not form part of the properties bearing separate
municipal numbers and that neither the writ petitioners nor
the contesting respondents could claim any independent
right, title or interest over the same so as to enclose it by
constructing a compound wall and gate. Since the passage
had not been specifically gifted or bequeathed to any

15

particular person, the children of Shri. M. Venkataramaiah
were held to have equal rights therein. It was further held
that the contesting respondents could not have leased the
passage to the educational institution.
11. Insofar as the civil suit instituted by the
educational institution was concerned, the learned Single
Judge noticed that the suit had been filed after issuance of
the notice by BBMP and that BBMP, despite entering
appearance, had failed to effectively contest the
proceedings. It was observed that the suit proceeded on an
incorrect description of the properties as a composite unit,
notwithstanding the existence of separate municipal
numbers and the absence of amalgamation of khatas. The
learned Single Judge held that the Civil Court ought to have
examined the maintainability of the suit and that the decree
of permanent injunction would not prevent BBMP from
taking action in accordance with law. The learned Single
Judge also expressed concern over the conduct of BBMP
officials in defending the civil proceedings and directed the
Chief Commissioner to initiate an enquiry, besides issuing

16

directions for effective monitoring of litigation involving
BBMP and conducting a survey of roads within its
jurisdiction. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge allowed
the writ petition and directed BBMP to implement the
notice/order dated 13.10.2011 and 18.11.2011, remove the
compound wall and gate constructed across the disputed
passage measuring 40 feet × 159 feet, keep the passage
free from encroachments, maintain the same and enter it in
its property register.
12. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants
in Writ Appeal No.529/2023 contends that the learned Single
Judge erred in adjudicating disputed questions of title and
ownership in proceedings under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. It is submitted that the passage
measuring 40 feet × 159 feet forms part of the larger
private property originally belonging to Shri. M.
Venkataramaiah and was provided exclusively for ingress
and egress to the properties bequeathed to his sons. The
passage had neither been relinquished in favour of BBMP nor
acquired by it in accordance with law and, therefore, could

17

not be treated as a public street. It is further contended that
respondents No.1 and 2 have independent access to their
property and no right, title or easementary right over the
disputed passage. The original owner had merely gifted and
bequeathed portions of his property to his children and had
not formed any layout requiring approval under Section 17
of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act. Mere
khata bifurcation, sanction of building plans or collection of
property taxes would not result in vesting of the passage in
BBMP.
13. It is further contended that the findings of the
learned Single Judge are mutually inconsistent, inasmuch
as, having observed that the children of Shri. M.
Venkataramaiah have equal rights over the passage, the
learned Single Judge proceeded to direct BBMP to maintain
the same as a public street. It is submitted that such
disputed questions could not have been determined without
recording evidence before the competent Civil Court. The
compound wall and gate were constructed for the safety and
security of the students and hostel inmates, the passage

18

was never intended for public use. It is also contended that
the notice dated 13.10.2011 was merely a show-cause
notice and the communication dated 18.11.2011 was an
internal communication, neither of which constituted a final
statutory order. It is contended that the learned Single
Judge failed to consider the spot mahazar, inspection reports
and affidavits of BBMP indicating that the passage had not
vested in the Corporation.
14. It is also submitted that the educational
institution had instituted a civil suit for permanent
injunction, which was decreed on 29.11.2012 and the
judgment and decree had attained finality. The learned
Single Judge could not have virtually nullified the decree or
questioned the maintainability of the suit in writ
proceedings. It is therefore contended that the directions
issued for removal of the compound wall and gate and for
treating the passage as a public street are legally
unsustainable.

19

15. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants
in Writ Appeal No.529/2023 has placed reliance on the
following decisions:-
•
Commissioner of Sales Tax and Others v.
M/s. Subhash and Company reported in
(2003) 3 SCC 454;

•
Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant
Vimalnath Narichania and Others reported in
(2010) 9 SCC 437;

•
Mohd. Abdul Quayyum v. State of
Karnataka and Others reported in 2013 SCC
OnLine Kar 10363;

•
Ramamurthy N. v. Bruhat Bangalore
Mahanagara Palike and Others passed in
W.P.No.22305/2016 decided on 24.03.2023;

•
Sri Vinod Damji Patel v. The Hoskote
Yojana Pradhikara passed in
W.P.No.15103/2022 decided on 17.04.2023;

•
Tukaram Kana Joshi and Others v.
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation and Others reported in (2013) 1
SCC 353, and

•
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited
v. Darius Shapur Chenai and Others
reported in (2005) 7 SCC 627 : AIR 2005 SC
3520.

20

16. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants
in Writ Appeal No.612/2023 contends that the learned Single
Judge exceeded the scope of the writ petition by directing
BBMP to maintain the disputed passage as a public street
and enter it in its property register, though the relief sought
was confined to implementation of the notice dated
13.10.2011 and the communication dated 18.11.2011 and
removal of the compound wall and gate. It is submitted that
no declaration regarding the nature or vesting of the
passage in BBMP had been sought. Mere khata bifurcation,
sanction of building plans or collection of property taxes
would not convert a private passage into a public street,
particularly when the passage had neither been acquired by
nor relinquished in favour of BBMP.
17. It is further contended that the learned Single
Judge erred in applying Section 17 of the Karnataka Town
and Country Planning Act and Section 505 of the Karnataka
Municipal Corporations Act, as the original owner, Shri. M.
Venkataramaiah, had merely gifted and bequeathed portions
of his property to his children without forming any layout or

21

public road. The statutory provisions relating to formation of
layouts and relinquishment of roads were therefore
inapplicable. It is also submitted that BBMP maintains a
Road History Register under Section 293 of the Karnataka
Municipal Corporations Act and that the general directions
issued by the learned Single Judge for conducting a survey
of roads throughout Bengaluru were neither sought by the
writ petitioners nor warranted for adjudication of the dispute
concerning the particular passage.
18. It is also submitted that the affidavit filed on
behalf of BBMP in April 2022, expressing willingness to
implement the earlier notice and communication, could not
be treated as an admission that the disputed passage vested
in BBMP or as conferring any statutory authority over the
same. It is therefore contended that the directions requiring
BBMP to maintain and register the passage as a public
street, as also the wider directions concerning the survey of
roads, are legally unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
19. The learned counsel appearing for respondents
No.1 and 2 in both the appeals contends that the disputed

22

passage measuring 40 feet × 159 feet was specifically
provided under the registered Will and Gift Deeds dated
22.04.2004 executed by Shri. M. Venkataramaiah and is
reflected in the boundaries of the respective properties. It is
submitted that the passage was intended to provide access
to the properties allotted to his children, including
respondent No.1 and that the appellants in Writ Appeal
No.529/2023 cannot claim exclusive rights over the same. It
is further submitted that BBMP, having recognised the
passage while effecting khata bifurcation, assigning separate
municipal numbers and sanctioning building plans, cannot
subsequently contend that it is not a public street. It is also
pointed out that, out of the total extent of 49,613 sq.ft.,
betterment charges were paid only in respect of 43,253.75
sq.ft., leaving out approximately 6,360 sq.ft. comprising the
disputed passage, which, establishes that the passage vests
in BBMP.
20. It is further contended that, having regard to the
definitions of private and public streets under Sections 2(30)
and 2(31) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, the

23

disputed passage, being accessible to the public, constitutes
a public street. Reliance is placed on Sections 265, 280,
285, 287, 288, 288-A and 288-D of the Karnataka Municipal
Corporations Act to contend that BBMP is empowered and
obligated to prevent and remove unauthorised obstructions
over streets and that the compound wall and gate could not
have been constructed without obtaining the requisite
statutory permission.
21. We have considered the contentions advanced.
We notice that the writ petition itself was filed specifically
alleging that the entire property belonged to Shri. M.
Venkatramaiah and that the owner had bifurcated the
property into 5 portions and had executed a Will and 2 Gift
Deeds, dividing the property among his three sons and two
daughters. It is contended that the passage road measuring
40 feet x 159 feet leading to Ramamurthy Nagar Main Road,
which bifurcated the properties allotted in favour of the
petitioner No.1 and respondents No.4 to 6, vested in
respondent No.1's authority, under Section 265 of the
Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. It is on these

24

contentions that the writ petition was filed, seeking
directions to the respondent No.3 to remove the
encroachment and dismantle the compound and gate legally
installed in the 40 feet road.

22. The learned Single Judge, after considering the
contentions, held that the order of injunction passed in the
suit file by the Educational Institution as against the BBMP
could not come in the way of this Court directing the BBMP
to remove the compound wall and gate put upon its
passage/street, which was deemed to have been vested with
the BBMP on account of the respondents No.4 to 6 having
obtained bifurcation of khata.

23. The finding of the learned Single Judge is to the
effect that since the khata of the property had been
bifurcated and since the passage was not included in any of
the khata so bifurcated there is a deemed vesting of the
road in favour of the BBMP. We are unable to accept the said
contention. Section 265 of the Karnataka Municipal
Corporations Act, 1976 reads as follows:-

25

"265. Vesting of public streets and their
appurtenances in corporation.-
(1) All public streets in the corporation reserved under the
control of the Government, with the pavements, stones
and other materials thereof and all work materials,
implements and other things provided for such streets, all
sewers, drains, drainage works, tunnels and culverts
whether made at the cost of the corporation fund or
otherwise, in or alongside or under any street, whether
public or private, and all works, materials, implements
and other things appertaining thereto and all trees not
being private property growing on public streets or by the
side thereof, shall vest in the corporation.

(2) The Government may, after consulting the corporation
by notification withdraw any such street, sewer, drain,
drainage work, tunnel, culvert or tree from the control of
the corporation."

24. The provisions of Section 17 of the Karnataka
Town and Country Planning Act also provides for sanction for
subdivision of plot or layout of private street, though it is
stated in the instant case that no particular permission
under Section 17 of the KTCP Act had been taken by
appellant No.1, there was a subdivision of plots and a
mention of the road in the plan sanctioned obtained by the
appellants. It is on these grounds that the learned Single

26

Judge has held that there is a deemed surrender and vesting
of the road in question in the BBMP.

25. The BBMP in its affidavit filed on 14.01.2022 had
specifically stated as follows:-
"I Submit that, to clear the ambiguity and to ascertain the
actual facts, on 30.09.2021, I, along with the Assistant
Engineer of Maruthi Sevanagar Sub-Division, BBMP visited
the spot and conducted an inspection. In the said
inspection, it was found that there is no encroachment on
the public road. The alleged 40 feet road, which is in fact
a passage, does not belong to the BBMP. Copy of the
Sport Mahazar Report, Road ID Map and Photographs
depicting the spot in question are produced herewith and
marked as Document Nos.1, 2 & 3 respectively."
26. Further, the Civil Court by judgment and decree
dated 29.11.2012 in O.S.No.7544/2011 filed by the School
against the BBMP, held that in the absence of pleading and
evidence on the part of the BBMP to prove the acts stated in
the Notice dated 13.10.2011, it was not possible to believe
that appellants No.1 to 3 had put up the compound wall and
iron gates across the 40 feet road or had laid the concrete
road illegally. It was held that appellant No.4 had proved its
lawful possession of the suit schedule properties and the
threat of interference, therefore, the Civil Court permanently

27

restrained the BBMP and its officials from interfering with
appellant No.4's possession and enjoyment of the suit
schedule properties. Even from the pleadings of the
petitioners in the writ petition there is absolutely no whisper
as to any relinquishment of the passage in question in
favour of the BBMP so as to enable the BBMP to treat the
property as a Public Road. The learned Single Judge has also
noticed that there is no such relinquishment of the road in
question.
27. In the facts and circumstances of the instant
case, where, admittedly, no sanction under Section 17 of the
Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act was ever sought
for or obtained by the parties, the finding of the learned
Single Judge that there was a deemed vesting in the BBMP
of the road formed in a private property by agreement of the
owners of the plots, cannot be accepted under any
circumstances.

28. We notice that the learned Single Judge also has
not adverted to any vesting of the road in question in the
BBMP by any specific order or act and has relied on a

28

deemed vesting on account of the fact that Khata in respect
of the 5 separate plots had been subdivided and the road
was not included in any of such plots.

29. We are of the opinion that in view of the fact that
there is no specific vesting of the road which is admittedly
formed within a private property in the BBMP, the finding of
the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained.

30. Appeal is accordingly disposed of with the
following observations:-

(i) Findings of the learned Single Judge with regard
to vesting of the road in the BBMP shall stand
vacated.

(ii) In case the parties have any disputes with regard
to use of the road may agitate the same in
appropriate proceedings before the competent
Civil Court.

29

All pending Interlocutory Applications shall stand
disposed of.

Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE




Sd/-
(K.S.BHARATH KUMAR)
JUDGE

PN/CP*