Writ petition challenging the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal's order upholding BBMP's Section 321(1) and 321(3) orders against construction deviating from a residential sanction plan. Inspection report showed 100% deviation and commercial use. The High Court found no illegality and dismissed the petition.
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:22927 WP No. 31265 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 31265 OF 2016 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
SMT H V GAYATHRI W/O. SRI. S. RAMESH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS HOUSEWIFE, R/AT. NO.4/13, "GURUDATH" AYODHYA RAMA ROAD, I PHASE J.P. NAGAR, PANCHAYATHI LAYOUT BENGALURU-560078.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI.V SRINIVAS., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N R JAGADEESHWARA., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 18.12.2015 IN APPEAL NO.1000/2012 PASSED BY TEH KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AT ANNEXURE-A, QUASH THE ORDER DATED 17.09.2012 PASSED UNDER SECTION . 321(1) OF THE
KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ACT, AT ANNEXUREB, QUASH ORDER DATED 17.09.2012 PASSED UNDER SECTION.321(2) OF THE KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ACT, AT ANNEXURE-C, QUASH ORDER DATED 24.09.2012 PASSED UNDER SECTION.321(3) OF THE KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ACT, AT ANNEXURE-D AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
the said property, she applied for permission along with approval of plan. After obtaining the sanction plan, the petitioner put up construction in accordance with law. Thereafter, the BBMP initiated proceedings under Section 321 of the KMC Act. The BBMP passed the provisional order dated 17.09.2012 vide Annexure-B and the same has been served along with notice dated 17.09.2012 to the petitioner vide Annexure-C. The petitioner has filed reply to the said notice. Pursuant to the same, the BBMP has passed the confirmation order dated 24.09.2012 vide Annexure-D. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached the Tribunal by filing an appeal under Section 443(A) of the KMC Act in Appeal No.1000/2012. The Tribunal, by impugned order dated 18.12.2015 has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the provisional order and confirmation order passed by the BBMP under Section 321(1) and Section 321(3) of the Act respectively.
the petitioner has put up construction as per the sanction plan issued by the competent authority. The petitioner has not violated the sanction plan. He further contended that this Court
on 27.07.2016 had directed the BBMP to conduct inspection of the premises in the presence of the petitioner and thereafter, submit a report. But the BBMP before conducting the inspection of the property has not issued any notice to the petitioner and inspection has been done without the knowledge of the petitioner. The report submitted by the BBMP is not in conformity of the provisional order. Hence, he sought for allowing the petition.
the said orders passed by the BBMP. Hence, he sought for allowing the writ petition.
writ papers.
confirmation order dated 24.09.2012 vide Annexure-D under Section 321(3) of the KMC Act.
NC: 2024:KHC:22927 WP No. 31265 of 2016
Section 321(3) of the KMC respectively. The said orders have been rightly affirmed by the Tribunal in the impugned order dated 18.12.2015 vide Annexure-A. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. Hence, the petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
9. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
DM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the BBMP's provisional and confirmation orders under Section 321 KMC Act for deviation from sanction plan were valid.
Whether the Tribunal rightly upheld those demolition/confirmation orders.
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt H V Gayathri
The Commissioner, Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike
The Assistant Executive Engineer, Basavanagudi Sub Division, BBMP
H.T. Narendra Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
