Petition challenging a BBMP appellate order on unauthorised construction was disposed of after the petitioner undertook to remove the steel-frame structure. The Court confirmed the impugned outcome but allowed three months for removal, barred occupation or use meanwhile, and left respondents liberty to seek orders on failure.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:46295 WP No. 21749 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024 BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 21749 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
VINAY B N W/O SANTHOSH BALASUBRAMANYA, AGED 31 YEARS R/A NO.422, 5th CROSS 3rd B MAIN, 3rd BLOCK, KALYAN NAGAR, BANGALORE 560 043.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIVEK N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
NC: 2024:KHC:46295 WP No. 21749 of 2024
KEERTHI SIGNATURE APPTS ITPL MAIN ROAD, HOODI, WHITEFILED BENGALURU - 560 048.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SAMIDHA PRADEEP WAINGANKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SMT. NIDHI M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4 )
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 20.07.24 PASSED BY THE R1 IN APPEAL NO. 182/23 VIDE ANNEXURE-N; DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONERS APPLICATION FOR ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PLAN AN LICENSE VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND APPROVE THE SAME.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
NC: 2024:KHC:46295 WP No. 21749 of 2024
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has called in question the Order dated 20.07.2024 in Appeal No.182/2023 [AnnexureN], an appeal that is filed under Section 253 of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 [BBMP Act]. There are protracted proceedings between the petitioner and the contesting private respondents. However, with the learned counsel for the petitioner submitting that the petitioner himself proposes to remove the construction against which the proceedings are initiated, this Court had permitted the petitioner to file the affidavit.
NC: 2024:KHC:46295 WP No. 21749 of 2024
petitioner has made certain statements in the affidavit which are contrary to the statements made in the writ petition, and she is joined by Ms Samidha Pradeep Waingankar in submitting that the petitioner is seeking unreasonable time to remove the structure. The petitioner's affidavit insofar as the removal reads as under:
"6. I submit that the entire construction put up is by way of Steel Frame Construction. I hereby undertake before this Hon'ble Court that I would remove the entire building constructed on my own within a period of 4 months. Since it is a steel frame construction, it would require skilled labour to remove the same. It is pertinent to state that removal of the structures when there are rains, would cause damage to the threads in the steel frame due to the wetness, and the same cannot be reused. Hence, considering all these aspects, I would require 4 months time to remove the Steel Frame Structure Building."
NC: 2024:KHC:46295 WP No. 21749 of 2024
ORDER
The petition stands disposed of
confirming the outcome of the
proceedings under Section 248 of the BBMP Act in terms of the impugned Order dated 20.07.2024 [Annexure-N] in Appeal No.182/2023 permitting the petitioner three [3] months from today to remove the building and on the condition
NC: 2024:KHC:46295 WP No. 21749 of 2024
that the petitioner shall not occupy or use
any portion of the structure during this period.
The respondents will be at liberty to move this Court for just orders in the event the petitioner fails to remove the offending structure within a period of
three [3] months as now undertaken.
SD/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE
AN/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's writ challenge to the appellate order under the BBMP Act should be disposed of in light of her undertaking to remove the unauthorised structure herself.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Vinay B N
The Commissioner, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike
The Assistant Executive Engineer, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike
Smt. Chandrika D. Reddy
Smt. Harshitha Dwarak
B M Shyam Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
