Writ petition challenging confirmation order under Section 248(3) BBMP Act for unauthorised commercial construction without sanctioned plan and dismissal of appeal. Court permitted filing of application under Section 240(8) for plan approval subject to penalty, stayed coercive measures, and restrained further construction pending decision.
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:52647 WP No. 3653 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3653 OF 2023 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
SMT.ANJULAMMA D/O MR T H MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT SURVEY NO 43/6, THINDLU VILLAGE, BENGALURU 560097
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. UNNIKRISHNAN M.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by VANAMALA N
Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU 560002
NC: 2024:KHC:52647 WP No. 3653 of 2023
BENGALURU 560097
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, LEARNED SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. BATHE GOWDA K.V.)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF IDNIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04/02/2023 IN APPEAL NO.231/2022 OF THE R-1 I.E. ANNEXUREA; QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING BRU.BEM.MA.PAA/YA.VA/SA.KAA.AA/V.UU.VEE/C. O./01/2022-23 DATED 07/11/2022 OF THE R-3 I.E. ANNEXURE-B.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is aggrieved by the Confirmation
Order dated 07.11.2022 [ Annexure-B ] under Section 248(3) of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 [BBMP Act] and the dismissal of the appeal in No.231/2022 dated 04.02.2023 [ Annexure-A' ]. The Confirmation Order dated 07.11.2022 is on the ground that the petitioner has completed construction without even a sanctioned plan. This
Court vide order dated 29.10.2024 has called upon the respondents to place on record whether the construction by the petitioner would be in accordance with the prevalent Byelaws/Zonal Regulations, and the jurisdictional Assistant Executive Engineer has filed this Report dated 12.12.2024 furnishing the details of the construction.
The jurisdictional Assistant Executive Engineer has stated inter alia that the Zonal Regulation permits commercial construction along the subject road and that the petitioner has constructed a commercial building but contrary to the Byelaws in terms of the setback.
NC: 2024:KHC:52647 WP No. 3653 of 2023
sanctioned plan, and if the petitioner could file such application, the parameters for considering the same.
the petitioner, notwithstanding her case that plan was obtained from the erstwhile Local Authority, can apply under Section 240(8) of the BBMP Act and that such application can be considered to see whether the petitioner can bring the construction in accordance with the Byelaws but subject to payment of penalty as is prescribed. Therefore, the first question is obviously answered in favour of the disposal of the petition permitting the petitioner to file an application under Section 240(8) of the BBMP Act.
respondents are directed not to take any coercive measures for implementing the impugned orders unless the application is considered in terms of this direction Hence, the following: -
ORDER
[A] The petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to file an application under Section 240(8) of the BBMP Act for plan with the concerned directing the consideration of the same, within six [6] weeks from the date of receipt thereof, in accordance with law but without prejudice to the respondents’ case as regards required due compliance with the Byelaws and the liability to pay the penalty.
[B] The petitioner shall file this application within six [6] weeks from today and shall not undertake any construction or
improvement in the subject property until such application is decided.
[C] The respondents are directed not to take any coercive measures pursuant to the impugned orders unless the application is considered in terms of this direction.
Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE
RB
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a petitioner whose construction was made without a sanctioned plan may apply under Section 240(8) BBMP Act for approval subject to penalty.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Anjulamma D/o Mr T H Munishamappa
The Chief Commissioner, Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike
The Zonal Commissioner, Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, Yelahanka Zone
The Assistant Executive Engineer, Vidyaranyapura Sub-Division, Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike
B M Shyam Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
