IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

WP.No: 6024/2024

BETWEEN:
K. Raja Reddy

AND
BBMP and 6 others

OBJECTION STATEMENT OF THE RESPONDENT NO.4

This respondent submits that at the outset the above writ petition is not maintainable either in law
or facts, and is a frivolous petition filed by the petitioner. As such the writ petition is malicious and
liable to be dismissed.

This respondent submits that land bearing Sy.No.227 of Chikkabanaswadi Village and was acquired
by BDA for the formation of OVMR Layout, when that being the case, the petitioner has no locus
standi in filing the above writ petition as the above writ petition is not a public interest litigation, and
if there is any violation and the BDA is the competent authority to look into the issue. As such the
petitioner is not a representative of BDA and the above writ petition is liable to be dismissed with
exemplary costs.

This respondent submits that the averments made in para no.1 of the writ petition are all absolutely
false, concocted story, the petitioner maybe a resident of the house property bearing No. 229/1 and
the document relied upon by the petitioner is not a title document. Further to the southern side of
the petitioner’s residence, there is a road and the respondent no.5 and 6 owns property bearing
Amalgamated/Compensated municipal Katha no.56, PID – 84-8-56 earlier Katha 240/20, property
bearing No.227/3 measuring 3106.5 Sqft of Chikkabanaswadi Village is existence are distorted
versions. The further averments that land bearing Sy.No.227 of Chikkabanaswadi village acquired by
BDA for the formation of OVMR Layout is a matter of record. Further the filing of the suit by the 6 th
Respondent and his brothers in OS.No: 15059/2006, OS.No:10094/1991 before the city civil court
Bangalore for permanent injunction, the court has rejected the said suit and aggrieved by the same
have filed appeal in RFA.No: 898/2008, RFA.No: 899/2008 are distorted versions in which this
respondent is not a party to the proceedings. The further averments that the suit was dismissed is
also absolutely false, and the document relied upon by the petitioner clearly demonstrates that this
respondent has nothing to do with the said proceedings.

The further averments that the granting of interim order, has nothing to do with this respondent or
his property. Further the Joint Development Agreement entered into between this respondent with
7th Respondent is a matter of record. Further Sy.No.227, Municipal Katha No. PID-84-8-56 formed in
Sy.No.227/3 is based on the said JDA Agreement, it appears plan and license is granted illegally by
BBMP for development of property. Though the said property do not exclusively belong to the
respondent 5 and 6 or his brothers. Further the averment that the petitioner is also entitled for share
in that regard and RFA.No:2000/2021 is pending before this Hon’ble Court and the said property is
included. Hence the plan, license granted to respondent No.5 and 6 is illegal and should not be
granted during the pendency of the appeal stated above are all absolutely false and concocted story.
The further averments that the petitioner submitted representation on 19.04.2024 to the Joint
Commissioner bringing into notice about all these facts, thereafter another representation submitted
on 03.05.2023 to the respondent, thereafter representation was submitted on 27.12.2023 to the
respondent, this respondent is not aware about any such representations made by the petitioner and
the same are malicious ones.

The further averments that on 03.05.2023 to furnish details of plan, license, katha in pursuance of
JDA and restrain from putting up further construction and developing of property during the
pendency of appeal pending before this Hon’ble Court also sought, in spite of the same respondent
no.1 to 4 have not taken any action against respondent no.5 to 7, later the respondent furnished
plan, license granted to respondent no.5 and 6 and the said plan is dated: 28.04.2022 is a matter of
record and Annexure – J is half baked and in the absence of the same, this respondent reserves his
right to file additional statement of objection.

Further Annexure- J the documents furnished by the petitioner does not make out that plan was
sanction for ground + 3 floors and contrary to sanctioned plan, the respondent no.5 and 6 putting up
construction without leaving setback towards the road running from North to South 40 ft and East to
West 30 ft and encroached the road and putting up construction are absolutely false and concocted
story, the documents produced by the petitioner are malicious ones. Further the building
constructed is by encroaching the road, and not leaving set back, apart from there is an order of
status-qo granted by this court and suppressing the fact plan is obtained, in fact towards the norther
side of the alleged construction the road is running from east to west towards the north and the
petitioners house is located and can be seen from photographs and the respondent no.5 and 6
putting up construction encroaching the land which is running from east to west and north to south
and the respondent no.5 to 6 are hurriedly putting up construction in spite of repeated
representation submitted by the petitioner from the inception to the respondent, the respondent
no.1 to 4 have not considered and wantedly not taken any action even though they have violated the
sanction plan and putting up construction are absolutely false and concocted story.

Further the respondent no.1 to 4 not taking any action against respondent no.5 and 6 restraining
them from putting up further construction in violation of the sanctioned plan cannot be sustained,
the respondent have given deaf ears at the instance of the local politicians even though the
respondent no.5 to 7 are putting up construction contrary to the sanctioned plan, apart from that
the petitioner has also got right in the said property, moreover when there is an interim order of
status-qo granted by the Hon’ble Court in spite of the same the respondent 5 and 6 are putting up
construction illegally. Hence in spite of noticing the same no action is taken up by the respondent
no.1 to 4 on the sanctioned plan, are all absolutely false, concocted story and are distorted versions.

This respondent submits that RFA.no: 898/2008 and 899/2008 in which this respondent is not a
party, copy of the same is produced herewith and marked as ANNEXURE - R 1.

This respondent submits that OS.No:10094/1991 and OS.No:15594/2006, this respondent is not a
party to the said proceedings. As such the averments made by the petitioner is distorted. As such the
petitioner has not approached this Hon’ble court with clean hands.

This respondent submits that if the petitioner has any grievances, the same have to be addressed by
a proper forum leading evidence about the facts alleged and proving his claims. As such when the
allegations made by the petitioner is a mixed question of law and facts. As such this writ petition is
not maintainable and the petitioner has to approach the competent civil court.

This respondent submits that though the sanctioned plan is in the name of this respondent, the
project is undertaken by the developers i.e, the 7 th respondent and this respondent has nothing to do
with the construction of the building and the allegations made by the petitioner.

This respondent submits that as the petitioner himself is putting up construction and using the
constructed building for paying guests and other commercial activities without obtaining any
permission by the competent authority. As such when that being the case, the concerned officials
has enquired into the unauthorised of the said residential property for commercial use and the
petitioner in order scuttle the said proceedings, the petitioner is using this proceedings against the
respondents no.1 to 4. Hence this writ petition is malicious

All allegations which are not specifically traversed herein are denied as false, frivolous and vexatious.

In view of the facts stated above the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs