BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

AT BANGALORE

WRIT PETITION No. / 2009

Between:-
Mr. Mohanlal V. Jain … Petitioner

And:-
The Commissioner, BBMP. ... Respondent

INDEX
______________________________________________________________
Sl. No. Description Pages C.F.
______________________________________________________________

1. Writ Petition U/A. 226 & 227 of C.O.I 1- 100-00

2. Verifying Affidavit

3. Annexure – ‘A’ Copy of the Sale Deed dated 26.02.2007

4. Annexure – ‘B’ Copy of the Khatha Certificate

5. Annexure – ‘C’ Copy of the Khatha Extract

6. Annexure – ‘D’ Copy of the Tax paid receipt.

7. Annexure – ‘E1-E3’ Copy of the photographs.

8. Vakalath

______________________________________________________________

Bangalore,

Date: 16-10-2009 ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER

 2

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

AT BANGALORE

WRIT PETITION No. / 2009

Between:-
Mr. Mohanlal V. Jain … Petitioner
And:-
The Commissioner, BBMP. ... Respondent
SYNOPSIS

Sl. No. Date Events

1. 18.04.07 The petitioner is the absolute owner of the
property bearing No. 98, old Tharagupet, Bangalore, with PID
No.29-118-98. The petitioner has purchased the said premises
under a registered sale deed dated 18.4.2007 from his vendors
for a valuable sale consideration.
2. 03.05.2007 The petitioner got changed the khatha &
khatha extract in his name in the revenue records of BBMP and
thereafter has paid up-to-date taxes on the schedule premises.
The petitioner is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
schedule premises and exercising all the rights of ownership
over the same without any interference.
3. 14.10.2009 The Respondent has earmarked on the
property to an extent of 3 feet for the purpose of demolishing
the entire structure to the said extent on the presumption that
the construction has been done on the nala/drain, which is a
Government property and has commenced the demolishing
work. The respondent in doing so has not even served a notice
to the occupants or to the owners and without any basis has
initiated the illegal acts. The petitioner being the owner has not
received any notice or the respondent has sought any
explanation from the petitioner. The petitioner being the owner
is put to untold hardship and inconvenience at the illegal acts of
the respondent. The petitioner apprehends that the respondent
in doing so would demolish the entire property, as the
respondent do not have the technology or know how to remove
the alleged encroachment in a multistoried building. Hence the
petitioner has filed the above petition seeking the intervention of
this Hon’ble court.
______________________________________________________________
Bangalore,
Date: 16-10-2009 ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER
 3

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

AT BANGALORE

WRIT PETITION No. / 2009

Between:-
Mr. Mohanlal V. Jain,
Aged about 68 years,
S/o. Sri. Vijayraj Jain,
C/o. M/s. Praveen Pharma,
No. 110, 1st Floor,
Sultanpet, Bangalore-53. Petitioner.

And:-
The Commissioner,
Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike,
Hudson Circle,
Bangalore. Respondent.

*****

MEMORANDUM OF WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

¬The petitioner most respectfully begs to submits as follows:-

1. The petitioner being highly aggrieved by the highhanded act of

demolishing the schedule premises under the guise of the petitioner having
encroached upon the nala/drain, without affording any notice or opportunity to
place on record that the schedule property is not put up on the nala/drain or
encroached area, has preferred the above petition questioning the correctness of
the same.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

2. That the petitioner is the absolute owner of the 1st floor shop premises
bearing F2, “Daulat Market”, with a super built up area of 3687.57 built on
property No.91/29, old Tharagupet, Bangalore, with PID No.29-118-91/29. The
petitioner has purchased the said premises under a registered sale deed dated
26.2.2007, which is a multistoried building comprising of ground and three upper
 4

floors, from his vendors for a valuable sale consideration. The copy of the sale
deed along with the sketch of the shop property is herewith enclosed as
Annexure-A.

3. That subsequent to purchase of the schedule premises the petitioner has

made application for transfer of khatha in his name before the revenue
authorities of BBMP and the revenue officer has effected the khatha in the name
of the petitioner and the petitioner has also assessed the property to revenue
and has paid the upto date taxes to the BBMP. The petitioner is herewith
enclosing the khatha certificate, khatha extract and tax paid receipt and marked
as Annexure-B to D respectively. The petitioner in peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the shop premises ever since from the date of purchase and
exerting all the rights over the premises as its true owner without any
interference from any quarter.

4. The petitioner was shocked to note that the respondent through its
engineering section have on 14.10.09 earmarked 4 ft., on the northern side of the
entire property and upon enquiry it has come to the knowledge of the petitioner
that the said earmarking was done under the impression that the vendors have
encroached the nala/drain, which is the property of the Government. The
petitioner is herewith furnishing the photographs to show the said marking on
the said premises and marked as Annexure-E1 to E3. The petitioner is a
bonafide purchaser of the unit and unaware of any such encroachment and the
respondent also permitted to put up the multi storied construction by sanction of
plan and license. The petitioner upon verification of the sanctioned plan and
license and title deeds has purchased the schedule premises.

5. That the 1st respondent has not notified the petitioner about the alleged
encroachment nor served any notice on the petitioner regarding the said
encroachment and the proposed demolition, but strangely has initiated the
demolition proceedings and has commenced the demolition work from about
 5

100 meters away from the schedule premises. That the petitioner apprehends
that the respondent may at any time demolish the schedule premises, which is a
multistoried building and if the respondent is allowed to do so, the petitioner will
be put to irreparable loss and great hardship.

6. The respondent do not possess the requisite equipments, technology or

men to scientifically demolish any of the alleged encroachments, as the
schedule premises is a multistoried building and if the respondent try to
demolish any portion with out the requisite expert there is danger of collapse of
the entire building, which may result in huge loss of public property and threat to
lives. The petitioner carries on business in pharmaceutical preparations i.e.,
drugs and medicines and if the respondent abruptly demolishes the building, the
drugs and medicines so stored will loose its self life and also it will be very
difficult for the petitioner to store the drugs in any alternative premises, as the
storage of drugs requires valid license from the Drugs Control Department.

7. That the petitioner cannot overnight shift or transfer the stocks so stored
in the premises in view of the restrictions imposed by the statute. That
according to the petitioner’s knowledge, there is no encroachment either on the
drain or any other Government property. The respondent without proper
verification of the records and on hearsay and assumptions has initiated the
coercive action of demolishing the buildings. The petitioner undertakes to
demolish the portion of encroachment if at all made upon proper enquiry and
affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner by the respondent.

8. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said illegal action of the respondent
has filed the above petition invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the petitioner has no other
alternative or efficacious remedy for his redressal, on the following amongst
other grounds to be urged at the time of hearing.
 6

9. The petitioner has not filed any other writ or appeal or revision against the
impugned order either before this Hon’ble Court or before any other court or
forum.
GROUNDS

10. The action of the respondent in demolishing the alleged encroachments

without notice, enquiry and ascertaining the extent in respect of the petitioner
premises is erroneous, highhandedness, without authority under law and abuse
of power vested in it resulting in grave injustice to the petitioner.

11. The action of the respondent is unwarranted, as the premise is built within
its schedule, boundary and area earmarked in the title deeds, which abundantly
demonstrates the revenue records issued by the respondent in respect of the
schedule premises.

12. The immediate and provocative acts of the respondent in trying to

demolish the portion of the schedule premises under the guise of encroachment
of the nala/drain which is adjacent to the premises, without ascertaining the
correctness thereof the existing length and breadth of the nala/drain is wholly
erroneous and it is highhandedness.

13. The action of the respondent is ill founded and without any scientific study
of the alleged encroachment or without any substantial documents or material
on hand and it is arbitrary illegal and biased.

14. The action of the respondent amounts to violation of principles of natural

justice and equity, which cannot be permitted to take place in a democratic
setup, which is nothing but abuse of process of law.

15. The action of the respondent has also violated the fundamental right of
the petitioner to carryon his lawful business guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of
The Constitution of India.
 7

16. That the respondent has bent upon implementing the demolishen work
inspite of request of the petitioner to suspend the illegal demolishen work till a
proper survey is conducted by affording reasonable opportunities to the
aggrieved persons like the petitioner and the said act of the respondent is
contrary and bad in law.

17. Viewed from any angle, the proposed action of the respondent to
demolish the schedule premises is unsustainable in law, contrary to facts, illegal
and irregular.

GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF

That the respondent has already demolished about 15 to 20 buildings in the
vicinity under the guise of encroachment without affording any notice or
opportunity or say of the victims and there is immanent danger that the
respondent may proceed to demolish the schedule premises. If the interim order
is not granted, the respondent will proceed to demolish the building and in that
event, the above writ petition becomes infractious, hence it is a fit case to grant
the interim relief.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE the petitioner most humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court be
please to:

a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or order or direction, preventing the respondent

from demolishing the portion of the schedule premises.

b) Issue any Writ or order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the
circumstances of the case, including an order as to cost of this Writ petition, in
the interest of justice and equity.

INTERIM PRAYER

Pending disposal of the above writ petition the petitioner most humbly
prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to stay all further demolition
 8

proceedings in respect of the schedule premise, in the interest of justice and

equity.
SCHEDULE PREMISE
All that piece and parcel of the first floor premises bearing unit No. F2,
“Daulat Market”, with a super built up area of 3687.57 built on property No.91/29,
old Tharagupet, with PID No.29-118-91/29, Bangalore.

Bangalore.
Date: 16.10.2009 Advocate for Petitioner
 9

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

AT BANGALORE

WRIT PETITION No. / 2009

Between:-
Mr. Mohanlal V. Jain … Petitioner

And:-
The Commissioner, BBMP. ... Respondent

VERIFYING AFFIDAVIT

I, Mohanlal V. Jain, Aged about 68 years, S/o. Late Vijayraj Jain, No. 110,
st
1 Floor, Sultanpet, Bangalore-53, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath
as follows:-

1. I am the Petitioner in the above petition and well conversant with the facts
of the case.

2. I state that the averments made in Para 1 to 17 of the Petition are true and
correct to the best of my information, knowledge and belief.

3. I state that the documents furnished at Annexure ‘A’ to ‘E’ are

originals/copies of the originals.
VERIFICATION

I, Mohanlal V. Jain, the deponent do hereby state that this is my name and
signature and the contents of this affidavit are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge, information and belief.

¬Identified by me

Deponent
Advocate. Sworn to Before Me
Bangalore.
Date:16-10-2009.
No of corrections:

Assignment No.8 : Writ Petition (Problem No.8)

Mr.Ravindra is a businessman dealing in pharmaceutical supplies. He has purchased a
 10

multistoried building in Gandhinagar, Bengaluru to carry on his business on 11-01-2010 from

Mr.Tejas. There after he is under peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said building.
Subsequently he got the khatas transferred in his name and started paying BBMP taxes
thereon. On 18-02-2020 the Commissioner BBMP earmarked near about 3feet of Ravindra’s
building as it was an encroachment over nala/drain which is the property of Government.
Further, Commissioner starts the demolition of such encroached buildings in the lane of
Gandhinagar. Surprised by the act of Cmmr. BBMP, Mr.Ravindra requested the authority to
conduct the survey and proceedings as per the law and justice, but his attempts went in vain.
Now without having any alternate to safeguard his property and business premises from the
arbitrary act of Cmmr. BBMP Ravindra wants to file a Writ Petition before High Court of
Karnataka seeking the remedy of Mandamus. Draft a WP.