This writ petition is filed seeking to set aside the

notice dated 24.08.2023 issued by respondent No.1-BDA

produced at Annexure-A.

2. Case of the petitioner is that, he is the absolute

owner in peaceful possession of the industrial land bearing

- 3 -

No.171/A and 171/B, amalgamated property No.171/A,

with PID No.11-15-171/A, 7th Main Road, Industrial

Suburb,

II

stage,

Rajajinagar,

Bangalore

("Petition

Schedule Property"), having purchased the same in terms

of the Deeds of Sale dated 11.09.1995 and 21.12.1995.

That the petitioner has been using the said property for

industrial purposes by having twenty employees working

therein. That on 24.08.2023 petitioner received a notice

from the respondent No.1 referred to as "Final Notice". It

is contended in the said notice that representative of

respondent No.1 had come to the petitioner's property and

taken measurement and found that there was an

encroachment by the petitioner over the adjoining

property in Sy.No.173-C owned by respondent No.2.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that the

notice issued though called as a "Final notice" was served

in the evening of Thursday that on 24.08.2023, following

Friday and Saturday being holiday and fourth Saturday

non working days. It is alleged that the timing of the

- 4 -

issuance of the notice was malafide. That having issued

the said notice, even without giving an opportunity to

petitioner, representative of the respondent No.1-BDA

went ahead and demolished the compound wall/stone slab

on eastern side of this property.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner drawing

attention of this Court to the photographs produced at

Annexure-H series submits that illegal demolition was

carried out by respondent No.1-BDA by demolishing the

stone slab wall, which was constructed enclosing the

generators on the eastern side of the petitioner's property.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the

suit in O.S.No.5478/2023 has already been filed and the

same is pending consideration before the City Civil Court.

That since the subject property do not belong to the

respondent-BDA, respondent-BDA had no authority to

interfere in a private matter. Hence, this petition.

- 5 -

5. Sri.B.Vachan, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent-BDA submits that the notices were issued prior

to the impugned notice at Annexure-A and since there was

no response from the petitioner, the representative of

respondent-BDA was constrained to take action in

demolishing the stone slab wall on the eastern side of the

property which belongs to the petitioner. He further

submits that the said action was prompted an account of

the complaint given by the proposed respondent alleging

the encroachment of the property.

6. Sri. Rohan Hosmath, learned counsel appearing for

the proposed respondent submits that the petitioner has

indeed encroached upon the property of the proposed

respondent and that in view of the fact that the property

was had been purchased by the proposed respondent from

the BDA, the complaint regarding encroachment was made

to the respondent-BDA and that no fault in that can be

found in that. Further respondent-BDA responding to the

- 6 -

complaint has redressed the grievous of the proposed

respondent. Hence, seeks for dismissal of this petition.

7. Heard, perused the records.

8. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that

the property being claimed by the petitioner is a private

property and respondent-BDA has no claim over the said

property. Considering the allegation made by the

proposed respondent of petitioner encroaching up on his

property, at the most same would amount to a private

dispute over the proprietary rights of the petitioner and

the proposed respondent. Needless to state such dispute

needs to be adjudicated and determined in a properly

constituted suit before the Competent Court of law. When

this being the admitted position, it is astonishing as to the

basis on which the representative of