Sri Raghavendra B R v. State of Karnataka

e -e1e-eeeee e e ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:48591( WP(No.(28332(of(2026( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010628772026(e ( e ( INATHEAHIGHACOURTAOFAKARNATAKAAATABENGALURUA e THe DATEDATHISATHEA8 ADAYAOFASEPTEMBER,A2026A e BEFOREA e THEAHON'BLEAMR.AJUSTICEABAMASHYAMAPRASADA e WRITAPETITIONANO.A28332AOFA2026A(LB-RES)A e A e BETWEEN:AA Ae SRI-RAGHAVENDRA-B-R-e S/O-H.V.-REVANNA,-- e AGED-ABOUT-44-YEARS,-- R/AT,-GIRIJA-NILAYA,-- e IN-FRONT-OF-VISDAM-SCHOOL,-- e M.A.-PRAKASH-LAYOUT,-- SCOUT-CAMP-ROAD,-- e DODDABALLAPURA-561-203.- e - …PETITIONER-e (BY-SRI.-NAGARAJA-H-R.,-ADVOCATE)- e A AND:Ae Digitally A signed by

1.-STATE-OF-KARNATAKA-VANAMALA N e REP.-BY-ITS-PRINCIPAL-SECRETARY,--Location: DEPARTMENT-OF-URBAN-DEVELOPMENT,--HIGH M.S.-BUILDING,--COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560-001.--

2.-CITY-MUNICIPAL-COUNCIL,-DODDABALLAPURA,--BENGALURU-RURAL-DISTRICT-561-203,--REP.-BY-ITS-MUNICIPAL-COMMISSIONER.--

3.-SRI-P.V.-LAKSHMINARAYANA-SETTY,--e e -e2e-eeeee e e ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:48591( WP(No.(28332(of(2026( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010628772026( ( ( S/O-P.L.-VENKATACHALA-SETTY,--AGED-ABOUT-56-YEARS,--RESIDING-AT-NO.18,-16TH-CROSS,--MANJUNATHA-NAGAR,--MAGADI-ROAD,-BENGALURU-562-123.--

4.- SRI-P.V.-SURESH-BABU,- S/O-P.L.-VENKATACHALA-SETTY-AGED-ABOUT-52-YEARS,- R/AT-VIKASA-NIVASA,- M.A.-PRAKASH-LAYOUT,- SCOUT-CAMP-ROAD,- NEAR-RAILWAY-STATION,- DODDABALLAPURA,- BENGALURU-RURAL-DISTRICT-561-203.- - …RESPONDENTS- - (BY-SRI.-BOPANNA-BELLIAPPA,-AGA-FOR-R1)- - - THIS-WRIT-PETITION-IS-FILED-UNDER-ARTICLES-226-AND-227-OF-THE-CONSTITUTION-OF-INDIA-PRAYING-TO--------------QUASHING-THE-INTIMATION-LETTER/-NOTICE/-ORDER-DATED-02.09.2026-ISSUED-BY-THE-R2-MUNICIPAL-COMMISSIONER-DODDABALLAPURA-TALUK,- IN-NO.- CMD/TC/CR/38/2026-27-WHICH-PRODUCED-AT-ANNX-A.- - - THIS-PETITION,-COMING-ON-FOR-PRELIMINARY-HEARING,-THIS-DAY,-ORDER-WAS-MADE-THEREIN-AS-UNDER:- e

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner's grievance is with the Intimation Letter dated 02.09.2026 [Annexure-A] issued by the City Municipal Council, Doddaballapura [the second respondent]. The second respondent has issued this Intimation Letter informing the petitioner that this Court in W.P.No.7197/2021 (LB-RES) has called upon the Commissioner to take note of the complaints made about the unauthorized construction on a public street, issue show cause notices to encroachers take action in accordance with law to remove encroachments and that the petitioner therefore must respond within seven days otherwise steps will be taken for removal of the encroachment and recovery of costs.

Sri. Nagaraja H R, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits [a] that this Intimation Letter does not admit the petitioner any opportunity to show cause against the alleged encroachment, [b] that there is

immediate threat of dispossession and [c] that the petitioner cannot be dispossessed from the property which is purchased under the Sale Deed dated

02.12.2010 [Annexure-B] especially when the petitioner is admitted the benefit of revenue entries.

Sri. Bopanna Belliappa, a learned Additional Government Advocate, who is called upon to accept notice for the first respondent, is heard. The short question for consideration is: Whether this Court must interfere with the impugned Intimation Letter dated 02.09.2026 to quash the same or read this Intimation Letter as only a 'Show Cause Notice' to the petitioner granting opportunity.

The impugned Intimation Letter itself categorically states that this Court has called upon the Commissioner to take note of encroachments and issue Show Cause Notices for removal of encroachment, if any. It would follow from this that the second respondent should have issued a Show Cause Notice

which extends an opportunity to the noticee [such as the petitioner] to justify his possession based on the title. Therefore, this Court is persuaded to dispose of the petition treating the impugned Intimation Letter as a 'Show Cause Notice' to the petitioner with opportunity to respond to the same by 15.09.2026 calling upon the second respondent to consider the reply and documents filed by the petitioner and pass just orders. It is needless to observe that until there is a reasoned order, the petitioner cannot be dispossessed from the property.

The petition is allowed in view of the aforesaid terms.

Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

RU List No.: 2 Sl No.: 15