Issues of encroachment affecting property rights must be adjudicated in civil court, not via writ jurisdiction.

ORAL ORDER

The captioned writ petition is filed assailing the sanction plan dated 30.12.2024 obtained by private respondent No.6 as per Annexure-E. Consequently, the petitioner is also seeking quashing of the Uttara Patra dated 04.01.2024 issued by respondent No.4 as per Annexure-D and the prohibition order restraining the private respondent No.6 from putting up construction on the property bearing Municipal No.36/1-2 situated at Sriramapuram, Kranthikavi Sarvagna Road, Cheluvaiah Compound, Okalipuram Extension, Bengaluru.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the respondent - BBMP and learned counsel appearing for the private respondent Nos.5 and 6.

3. On a specific query posed by this Court as to whether any civil proceedings are pending between the parties, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submits that the petitioners have instituted a suit in O.S.No.6234/2012 on the file of the competent civil Court. In the said suit, the petitioners have sought reliefs of declaration, mandatory injunction and perpetual injunction. It is further submitted that the pleadings in the civil suit specifically allege that respondent Nos.5 and 6- private parties have encroached upon the suit schedule property and are attempting to raise unauthorized construction thereon. Thus, the core grievance of the petitioners is not merely one of regulatory violation under municipal law, but one of alleged encroachment and trespass affecting title and possession, which is quintessentially a civil dispute.

4. This Court, in a catena of decisions, has consistently held that where an adjoining property owner raises a grievance in respect of construction carried out by a neighbor, allegedly in violation of sanctioned building plans or statutory setback requirements but such construction is confined to the neighbor's own property, the appropriate remedy may lie under writ jurisdiction, particularly where municipal authorities have acted in breach of their regulatory duties. However, in cases where the aggrieved party alleges encroachment onto their own property, thereby affecting their civil rights and title, such issues are best addressed in a civil suit, and not through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 5. In the present case, the petitioners, who are plaintiffs in O.S.No.6234/2012, have not only sought injunctive relief but have also specifically pleaded that the construction by respondent Nos.5 and 6 is being undertaken by encroaching onto the petitioners' property. In such circumstances, where the civil suit is pending and includes a prayer for mandatory injunction to remove the alleged encroachment, it would not be appropriate for this Court to exercise writ jurisdiction to quash the building plan sanctioned in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6. The petitioners are at liberty to pursue their remedy before the competent civil Court, which is already seized of the matter.

6. It is always open to the petitioners to press for interim relief by moving appropriate interlocutory applications before the civil Court, which is empowered to take cognizance of the pleadings and the prima-facie materials placed on record. Upon due notice to respondent Nos.5 and 6, the Civil Court can adjudicate the said applications and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. In view of the pendency of the civil suit and the nature of reliefs already sought therein, parallel invocation of writ jurisdiction in respect of the same subject matter does not arise.

7. In view of the pending civil suit and the reliefs already sought therein, the writ petition is liable to be disposed of with a