Allowed¶56

Sri H D Ramesh v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC15 Oct 2025WA/5167/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kar HC DB (Jayant Banerji & K.V. Aravind JJ), WA No.5167/2016, decided 15.10.2025 — Section 321 KMC Act 1976 stop/demolition case; onus wrongly fixed on applicant to name sanctioning Engineer; categorical finding on plan validity required; Single Judge order (22.11.2016) and Tribunal order (17.07.2015) set aside; remanded to Karnataka Appellate Tribunal; Rs.50,000 costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal allowed; the impugned Single Judge order dated 22.11.2016 and the Tribunal order dated 17.07.2015 set aside; matter remanded to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, for fresh decision and appropriate finding on the validity of the plan; pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. ¶56

Sri H D Ramesh Vs the Commissioner — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶56

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tribunal was justified in placing the onus on the appellant-petitioner to disclose the name and designation of the officer who sanctioned the building plan. +1 more

¶43

Court's answer

The Tribunal's fixation of onus on the appellant to disclose the name of the Engineer whose signature appeared on the plan was not justified.

¶49

Ratio / Principle

A categorical finding was required to be returned by the Tribunal, being the final authority which would consider the facts of the case, with regard to the validity of the plan.

¶49

Key takeaways

Despite confirming the provisional order 'only after due investigation', the respondents nowhere stated that the admittedly produced plan was a fraudulent document, never issued by the Municipal Corporation, or absent from its records; verification could easily have been done with reference to the LP number appearing on the plan.ratio¶49
Annexure-G (photocopy of the residential building plan) bears the owner's signature, the signatures and stamps of the Engineers, Valuers and Architects, and an imprint stating to be of the office of the Executive Engineer, Corporation of the City of Bengaluru, LP No.4269/12/12-13, dated 18.03.2013, valid till 17.03.2015.ratio¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act by H.D. Ramesh against the learned Single Judge's order dated 22.11.2016 in W.P. No.44508/2015 (LB-BBMP) dismissing his writ petition with costs of Rs.50,000/- and directing demolition of his residential construction at Site No.8, Ganagadeshwara Layout, Bengaluru. Demolition flowed from a provisional order dated 10.07.2013 under Section 321(1) and (2) and a confirmation order dated 22.07.2013 under Section 321(3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, upheld by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.759/2013 (judgment dated 17.07.2015) solely because the appellant did not disclose who sanctioned the plan. The Division Bench found that Annexure-G bore the owner's signature, the signatures/stamps of Engineers, Valuers and Architects, and a rubber-stamp imprint of the office of the Executive Engineer, Corporation of the City of Bengaluru (LP No.4269/12/12-13, dated 18.03.2013, valid till 17.03.2015); the respondents' objections nowhere alleged the plan to be fraudulent, unissued, or absent from municipal records, and verification via the LP number was readily available. Holding the Tribunal's onus-fixation unjustified and a categorical finding on the plan's validity necessary, the Court set aside both the Single Judge's and the Tribunal's orders and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh decision; pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:41052-DB WA No. 5167 of 2016

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶9

WRIT APPEAL No. 5167 OF 2016 (LB-BMP)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI H. D. RAMESH, S/O DALAVAYIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/A No.27, SRINIDHI TRADERS, GANAPATHI NAGARA, PEENYA 3^RD STAGE, BENGALURU-560058.

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SRI P. N. NANJA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶14

Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU

¶15

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE COMMISSIONER, BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560002.

¶18

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, WARD No.41, 1^ST A CROSS ROAD, MEI COLONY, LAGGERE, BENGALURU-560058.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI H. DEVENDRAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 (Absent))

¶21

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:41052-DB WA No. 5167 of 2016

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION No.44508/2015 (LB-BBMP) DATED 22/11/2016.

¶24

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)

¶28

The learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner is present. No one appears for the respondents.

¶29

The instant appeal has been filed challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 22.11.2016 passed in Writ Petition No.44508/2015 (LB-BBMP). By means of the impugned judgment and order, the writ petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed with costs and the property of the petitioner was directed to be demolished.

¶30

It appears that the petitioner is the owner of property bearing No.8, BBMP Katha No.385, Ward No.25, Ganagadeshwara Layout, Ganapati Nagara, Laggere Village, Bengaluru, acquired by means of a registered sale deed dated

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:41052-DB WA No. 5167 of 2016

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

14.02.2007. It was stated by him that he started constructing

¶34

a residential house on the said property after obtaining sanctioned plan from the respondents vide LP No.4269/12/1213. On 10.07.2013, a provisional order was passed under Section 321(1) and (2) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976¹ , directing him to stop the unauthorized construction. The provisional order was confirmed on 22.07.2013 under Section 321(3) of the Act.

¶35

The petitioner filed an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru,² which came to be numbered as Appeal No.759/2013. By a judgment dated 17.07.2015, the appeal was dismissed. The Tribunal held that the appellant had not disclosed as to who sanctioned the plan and hence, the same cannot be considered as the name and designation of the officer is not there on the plan. It was observed by the Tribunal that in the provisional order and the confirmation order, it was stated that without obtaining plan and by encroaching upon the neighbourers lands, the building was constructed. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the

¶36

1 Act.

¶37

2 Tribunal.

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:41052-DB WA No. 5167 of 2016

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

confirmation order and the provisional order do not call for interference.

¶41

The learned Single Judge, relying upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the fact that the learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out any sanction in favour of the petitioner, dismissed the writ petition with costs of Rs.50,000/-.

¶42

We have perused the record of this appeal and find that Annexure-G is a photocopy of the plan of a residential building stated to be situated at Site No.8, Katha No.141/4, Ganagadeshwara Layout, Laggare, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Ward No.41, Bengaluru. It bears the signature of the owner Sri H.D. Ramesh as well as the signature and stamp of the Engineers, Valuers and Architects. There is also an imprint, which appears to be a rubber stamp in Kannada as well as in English language stating to be that of the office of the Executive Engineer, Corporation of the City of Bengaluru, LP No.4269/12/12-13, dated 18.03.2013 and valid till 17.03.2015.

¶43

The order of the Tribunal discloses that the appellant did not disclose before the Tribunal that who sanctioned the plan

¶44

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:41052-DB WA No. 5167 of 2016

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

and hence, the same cannot be considered as the name and designation of the officer is not there on the plan.

¶48

We have perused the statement of objections of the

¶49

respondents. In paragraph - 2 thereof, it is stated that the construction is an absolute false construction on the said property. It has further been stated that the respondents have confirmed the provisional order only after due investigation. However, it has nowhere been stated that the plan that was admittedly produced before the Tribunal is a fraudulent document or that the same was never issued by the Municipal Corporation or that it did not exist in the record of the Municipal Corporation. Verification could have been done easily with reference to the LP number appearing on the plan. As such, we find that the order of the Tribunal fixing onus on the appellant to disclose the name of the Engineer, whose signature appeared on the plan, was not justified. A categorical finding was required to be returned by the Tribunal with regard to the validity of the aforesaid plan, it being the final authority which would consider the facts of the case. In this view of the matter, neither the order of the learned Single Judge that is

¶50

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:41052-DB WA No. 5167 of 2016

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

impugned in the present appeal, nor the order of the Tribunal

¶54

dated 17.07.2015 can be sustained.

¶55

9. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed .

¶56

The impugned judgment and order dated 22.11.2016 and the order passed by the Tribunal dated 17.07.2015 cannot be sustained and are set aside.

¶57

The matter is remanded to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, to take a fresh decision and to give an appropriate finding with regard to the plan concerned in light of the above observations.

¶58

In view of the disposal of the main appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶59

Sd/(JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE

¶60

Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶61

¶62

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

Sri H D Ramesh v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri H D Ramesh v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Ekta Singh Vs Dr Rajeev Giri

Smt. S H Meenakshi Vs Sri G Biskurappa @ Puttaswamaiah

Dr. Kailash M S Vs Dr. Chandrika K v

Mrs. Chaithra Vs Mr. Mahesh

State of Karnataka Vs Danone Narang Beverages

Sri Dilbag Singh Vs Smt. Sumana C v