Subramani D N v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC26 Nov 2025WP/16807/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; WP No. 16807 of 2025 (LB-BMP); R. Nataraj, J.; 26.11.2025; BBMP Act 2020; Section 248(3); Section 356; enforcement of demolition/stop-construction order; mandamus; unauthorised construction by respondent No.4; writ disposed of with direction to implement order within reasonable time and maintain status quo on construction; respondent No.4 served and unrepresented.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to take necessary action as provided in law to implement the order dated 24.07.2023 passed under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020 within a reasonable time, and until then to ensure that there is no further construction by respondent No.4. ¶44-45

Subramani D N Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶44-45

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent Nos.1 to 3 (BBMP officials) should be directed by mandamus to enforce the order dated 24.07.2023 passed by respondent No.3 under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020 (Annexure-D) against the construction by respondent No.4.

¶28

Court's answer

The writ petition stands disposed of, directing respondent Nos.1 to 3 to take necessary action as provided in law to implement the order passed under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020 within a reasonable time.

¶45-46

Ratio / Principle

Until the Section 248(3) order is implemented, respondent Nos.1 to 3 shall ensure that there is no further construction by respondent No.4.

¶46-47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (LB-BMP) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by an adjoining resident seeking a mandamus to the Commissioner, BBMP, the Assistant Executive Engineer and the Assistant Director of Town Planning (South) to enforce the order dated 24.07.2023 passed by respondent No.3 in No.SL.SA.NE.NEO(D)/CO/72/2023-24 under Section 248(3) of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 against the construction by respondent No.4. By an earlier order dated 02.07.2025 the Court had noted that, pursuant to its interim order, construction by respondent No.4 was stopped, and had directed respondent No.3 to ensure compliance of the Section 248(3) order as mandated under Section 356 of the BBMP Act, 2020. Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 stated that the construction had been stopped and further steps would be taken to implement the order, which was not disputed by the petitioner's counsel. HELD: writ petition disposed of, directing respondent Nos.1 to 3 to take necessary action as provided in law to implement the Section 248(3) order within a reasonable time, and until then to ensure no further construction by respondent No.4. (R. Nataraj, J.)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:49105 WP No. 16807 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 16807 OF 2025 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SUBRAMANI D.N. S/O. K.B. NANJUNDA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/AT. NO.147, 4^TH CROSS, LALBAGH ROAD, S.C. GARDEN, BENGLAURU-560027.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SRINIVASA K., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE COMMISSIONER, B.B.M.P., N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560053.

¶13

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KEMPEGOWDA NAGAR, SUB-DIVISION, 2^ND FLOOR, 1^ST CROSS, H.C. SIDDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU-560 002.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH) BBMP BUILDING, 9^TH CROSS, 9^TH MAIN ROAD, 2^ND BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 011.

¶16

SMT. SUNANDA JOSHI, W/O. VENKATESH,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:49105 WP No. 16807 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT. NO. 145, 4^TH CROSS, LALBHAG ROAD, BENGLAURU-27.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. VAIBHAV RAVI MALIMATH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3;

¶23

RESPONDENT NO.4 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 TO TAKE ACTION TO ENFORCE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT DATED 24/7/2023 IN SL.SA.NE.NEO(D)/CO/72/2023-24, VIDE., ANNEXURE-D.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondent Nos.1 to 3 to enforce the orders bearing No.¸À.¤.£ÀAiÉÆÃ(zÀ)/¹N/72/2023-24 dated 24.07.2023 passed by the

¶29

respondent No.3 under Section 248(3) of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 (henceforth referred to as 'BBMP Act, 2020').

¶30

This Court had on 02.07.2025 passed the following

¶31

order:

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:49105 WP No. 16807 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

"Await notice to respondent No.4.

¶35

The captioned writ petition is filed seeking a direction against the respondents to enforce the order dated 24.07.2023 passed by respondent No.3 under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020 as per Annexure-D.

¶36

Pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, learned counsel appearing for the BBMP submitted that the construction undertaken by respondent No.4 is stopped.

¶37

Since notice is yet to be served, this matter is adjourned by two weeks and ordered to be re-listed in the preliminary hearing on 22.07.2025.

¶38

In the meanwhile, respondent No.3 shall ensure the compliance of the order passed under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020 as mandated under Section 356 of the BBMP Act, 2020."

¶39

The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3

¶40

submits that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 have stopped the construction being put up by the respondent No.4, which is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that further steps would be taken to implement the order passed under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020.

¶41

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:49105 WP No. 16807 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

In view of the above, this writ petition stands

¶45

disposed off , directing the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to take

¶46

necessary action as provided in law to implement the order passed under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020, within a reasonable time. Until then, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 shall ensure that there

¶47

is no further construction by the respondent No.4.

Sd/-

(R. NATARAJ)

JUDGE

BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

Subramani D N v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subramani D N 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

Sri Nayana Billava Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Srirama Vs the State of Karnataka

Nitesh Residency Hotels Private Limited Vs M/S Renaissance Services B v

Sri. B. S. Suresh Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

K a Thammaiah Vs the Mysore Urban Development Authority

Smt. B N Bhagyamma Vs the State of Karnataka