Disposed¶39

Chetan R Uchil v. the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Karnataka HC7 Feb 2025WP/20521/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

BBMP; Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike; illegal construction; unauthorised construction; Horamavu; Bethel Layout Ward No. 25; Bengaluru 560043; mandamus; Articles 226 and 227; representation dated 26.06.2024; Annex-A; provisional order; confirmatory order; appeal before Appellate Authority; fresh representation; amendment application rejected; impleading R4-R6; WP No. 20521 of 2024; LB-BMP; NC: 2025:KHC:5685; Justice N S Sanjay Gowda; decided 07.02.2025.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of permitting the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the BBMP after disposal of the appeal by the Appellate Authority; application for amendment rejected. ¶39

Chetan R Uchil Vs the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5685 WP No. 20521 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 20521 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

CHETAN R UCHIL S/O LATE RAJARAM PARAMESHWARA UCHIL, AGED 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 42, SLS SPENCER, HORAMAVU AGARA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 043.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. NEERAJA KARANTH.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER, BBMP OFFICE, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU – 560 002.

¶13

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER BBMP MAHADEVAPURA ZONE,

¶15

WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD, RHB COLONY, BENGALURU – 560 048.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BBMP OFFICE, HORAMAVU, BENGALURU – 560 043.

¶17

SMT. SANGEETHA MAHADEVAN AGED MAJOR (HUSBAND’S NAME IS NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:5685 WP No. 20521 of 2024

¶20

NO.31 & 32, 7^TH ‘A’ CROSS, BETHEL LAYOUT WARD NO. 25, HORAMAVU BENGALURU – 560 043.

¶21

SRI. M K REDDY AGED MAJOR (FATHER’S NAME IS NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) NO. 31 & 32, 7^TH ‘A’ CROSS, BETHEL LAYOUT WARD NO. 25, HORAMAVU BENGALURU – 560 043.

¶22

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING (MAHADEVAPURA) THE BBMP OFFICE-MAHADEVAPURA ZONE RHB COLONY, WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD BENGALURU – 560 048.

¶23

(R4 TO R6 ARE AMMENDED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED 07.02.2025)

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. M SHANTA BALAPPA.,ADVOCATE FOR R1-R3, R6; KUM. NIKITHA, ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI. H MUNISWAMY GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶26

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT R- 2 AND 3 TO CONSIDER AND PASS SUITABLE ORDERS ON HIS REPRESENTATION DTD. 26.06.2024 TO STOP THE ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION TAKING PLACE AT NO. 31 AND 32, 7TH ‘A’ CROSS, BETHEL LAYOUT, WARD NO. 25 HORAMAVU, BENGALURU 560043, FILED AND MARKED AS ANNX-A TO THE WRIT PETITION AND TAKE FURTHER ACTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AND GRANT SUCH OTHER WRIT OR ORDER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:5685 WP No. 20521 of 2024

¶29

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

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

The petitioner is seeking for a mandamus for issuance of a direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider and pass a suitable orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 26.06.2024, whereby the petitioner is requesting the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

¶33

(' the BBMP' ) to take action to stop the illegal construction taking place on the property bearing Nos.31 and 32, 7^th ‘A’ Cross, Bethel Layout, Ward No.25, Horamavu, Bengaluru 560043.

¶34

The learned counsel for the BBMP submits that the acting upon the representation of the petitioner, the BBMP has initiated action and not only issued a provisional order but also a confirmatory order.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:5685 WP No. 20521 of 2024

¶37

The learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that as against the order of confirmation, an appeal has been preferred and the same is pending consideration.

¶38

It is obvious that in light of the fact that an appeal has been filed against the order of confirmation, the BBMP cannot obviously consider the case of the petitioner to stop the illegal construction.

¶39

The petition is therefore disposed of permitting the petitioner to make a fresh representation after the disposal of the appeal by the Appellate Authority.

¶40

In view of the above, the application for amendment cannot be entertained at this stage and the same is therefore rejected.

¶41

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

¶42

RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58

Chetan R Uchil v. the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chetan R Uchil v. the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

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 Srikkanth S Vs the Chief Commissioner

Sri Mahabalesha K B Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri R Kishore Vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Mr. Ummer Farooq Maved Vs the Chief Commissioner

Smt Gopamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Riyaz Ahmed Khan Vs the State of Karnataka