Shri Manju G Gowda Vs the Commissioner Bbmp

SHRI. MANJU G GOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O SHRI GANAPAYYA AMMU GOWDA RESIDING AT NO.7, MARUTI LAYOUT NAGASHETTI HALLI VILLAGE RMV 2^ND STAGE, 2^ND CROSS 2^ND MAIN, SANJAYANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 094

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

(BY SRI.R.SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.JAGADISH J, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE COMMISSIONER, BBMP BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BBMP HEAD OFFICE HUDSON CIRCLE BENGALURU - 560 001

¶18

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTTOR TOWN PLAN (EAST DIVISION) BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:27229 WP No. 2776 of 2025 C/W WP No. 5582 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

OFFICE AT 22^ND FLOOR SUBHASH CHANDRA BOSE BUILDING M G ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001

¶22

ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BBMP HEBBALA SUB-DIVISION, JC NAGAR MAIN ROAD BENGALURU - 560 006

¶23

MR.ANNISHAM S/O MR.HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT NO.24, R.M.V II STAGE 2^ND CROSS, MARUTHI LAYOUT SANJAYA NAGARA BENGALURU NORTH BENGALURU - 560 094

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. KARTHIKEYAN B S, ADVOCATE FOR R.1 AND R.2; SRI.B.V.VIDYULATHA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R.3)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT IN APPEAL NO.121/2024 DATED 21.12.2024 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN REJECTING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT HEREIN (VIDE ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.,

¶27

IN WP NO.5582/2025

¶28

BETWEEN:

¶29

SRI.ANNISHAM

¶30

S/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT NO.24, RMV 2^ND STAGE 2^ND CROSS, MARUTHI LAYOUT SANJAYNAGAR

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:27229 WP No. 2776 of 2025 C/W WP No. 5582 of 2025

HC-KAR

BENGLURU NORTH

BENGALURU - 560 094

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. B V VIDYULATHA, ADVOCATE)

¶37

AND:

¶38

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARAPALIKE (BBMP) HUDSON CIRCLE

¶39

BENGALURU - 560 002

¶40

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER AND MEDICAL OFFICER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE HEBBALA DIVISION

¶41

1^ST FLOOR, MUNIREDDY PALYA J.C.NAGAR MAIN ROAD

¶42

BENGALURU - 560006

¶43

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE HEBBALA DIVISION

¶44

1^ST FLOOR, MUNIREDDY PALYA J.C.NAGAR MAIN ROAD

¶45

BENGALURU - 560006

¶46

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING (EAST DIVISION) BBMP, OFFICE AT 22^ND FLOOR SUBHASH CHANDRA BOSE BUILDING MG ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001

¶47

SRI. MANJU G GOWDA @ MANJUNATH S/O GANAPAYYA AMMU GOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶48

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:27229 WP No. 2776 of 2025 C/W WP No. 5582 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

R/AT PROPERTY BEARING MUNICIPAL NO.7 PID NO.100/358/7, NAGASHETTIHALLI VILLAGE RMV 2^ND STAGE, 2^ND CROSS 2^ND MAIN, MARUTHI LAYOUT SANJAYANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 094. ALSO AT: H.1/10, GROUND FLOOR, H - BLOCK HAUZKHAS NEW DELHI-110016. ALSO AT: KARNATAKA BHAVAN NO.10, KAUTILYA MARG CHANAKYAPURI NEW DELHI-110021

¶51

...RESPONDENTS

¶52

(BY SRI. KARTHIKEYAN B S, ADVOCATE FOR R.1 TO R.4; RI.R.SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.JAGADISH, ADVOCATE FOR R.5)

¶53

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4 TO FORTHWITH TAKE NECESSARY STEPS TO DEMOLISH THE UNAUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTED PORTION PUT UP BY THE 5^TH RESPONDENT ON THE PROPERTY BEARING MUNICIPAL NO.7, PID NO.100-358-7 SITUATED IN BBMP WARD NO.18 (OLD WARD NO.100) SANJAYNAGAR BENGALURU AS PER ORDER DATED 21.12.2024 PASSED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT IN APPEAL NO.121/2024 AT ANNEXURE-Q1, AND AS PER ORDER DATED 07.06.2024 PASSED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT AT ANNEXUREN AND N1 TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.

¶54

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

¶55

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶56

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:27229 WP No. 2776 of 2025 C/W WP No. 5582 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

ORAL ORDER

¶59

The captioned writ petition in W.P.No.2776/2025 is filed assailing the order dated 21.12.2024 passed by respondent No.1 - Authority, who has declined to grant any indulgence against the order passed under Section 326 of the BBMP Act, 2020 by respondent No.3 - Assistant Executive Engineer, BBMP in Appeal No.121/2024, while the connected writ petition in W.P.No.5582/2025 is filed by the adjoining owner seeking mandamus against respondent Nos.1 to 4 to forthwith take necessary steps to demolish the unauthorized constructed portion put up by the petitioner in W.P.No.2776/2025.

¶60

Both petitions are taken together for

¶61

consideration and the rank of the parties are referred as they are ranked in W.P.No.2776/2025.

¶62

Though the petitioner's counsel appearing for

¶63

the owner, who has undertaken construction in the disputed property, has tried to persuade this Court

¶64

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:27229 WP No. 2776 of 2025 C/W WP No. 5582 of 2025

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

contending that the order of respondent No.1 as per Annexure-A in W.P.No.2776/2025 suffers from serious

¶67

infirmities, this Court is not inclined to grant indulgence.

¶68

Having examined the records produced by

¶69

both the parties, the order passed by respondent No.1 - Appellate Authority while examining the notice issued under Section 356 of the BBMP Act, 2020 has strangely come to the conclusion that the petitioner in W.P.No.2776/2025 was not afforded opportunity post remand order passed by the Appellate Authority in Appeal No.140/2023. However, the Appellate Authority, though recorded its finding that the order passed under Section 356 of the BBMP Act, 2020 is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, proceeded to dismiss the appeal. The said order is under challenge in W.P.No.2776/2025.

¶70

The case on hand has got a chequered history.

¶71

On deeper examination of the records, this Court,

¶72

7 -

¶73

NC: 2025:KHC:27229 WP No. 2776 of 2025 C/W WP No. 5582 of 2025

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

prima-facie , satisfied that the conduct of the petitioner in W.P.No.2776/2025 is grossly unfair.

¶76

Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.11916/2023, respondent No.3 initiated action by issuing notices under Sections 248(1) and 248(2) of the BBMP Act, 2020 to the petitioner. Provisional orders under the said provisions were passed on 15.06.2023. As the petitioner failed to respond or contest the same, a Confirmation Order was passed under Section 248(3) of the Act on 04.07.2023.

¶77

Despite the Confirmation Order, the private

¶78

respondents alleged that the petitioner continued with the construction activity. The records reveal that the petitioner filed Appeal No.140/2023 challenging the Confirmation Order dated 04.07.2023 after the expiry of the limitation period prescribed under Section 253 of the BBMP Act, 2020.

¶79

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:27229 WP No. 2776 of 2025 C/W WP No. 5582 of 2025

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

Meanwhile, private respondent No.4, relying on

¶82

the Confirmation Order dated 04.07.2023, filed W.P.No.26983/2023 seeking a direction to respondent authorities to take appropriate action against the unauthorized construction. This Court, by order dated 20.12.2023, passed an interim direction restraining the petitioner from proceeding with further construction.

¶83

Subsequently, the Appellate Authority allowed Appeal No.140/2023 in part by order dated 12.01.2024, remitting the matter back to respondent No.3 for fresh consideration. On remand, respondent No.3 once again issued notices under Sections 248(1) and 248(2) on 21.02.2024 following a spot inspection. As the petitioner failed to respond, a fresh Confirmation Order under Section 248(3) was passed on 06.03.2024. The appeal filed thereafter was dismissed.

¶84

Based on the said Confirmation Order, the Executive Engineer and Medical Officer, who are not

¶85

9 -

¶86

NC: 2025:KHC:27229 WP No. 2776 of 2025 C/W WP No. 5582 of 2025

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

parties to the lead petition, passed an order on 07.06.2024 under Section 256 of the BBMP Act, 2020, directing demolition of the unauthorized construction. This demolition order is the subject matter of challenge in W.P.No.2776/2025.

¶89

Upon detailed examination of the records,

¶90

it becomes evident that the petitioner has misused the principles of natural justice. Though the Appellate Authority initially granted relief in Appeal No.140/2023 citing lack of opportunity and remitted the matter back for fresh enquiry, the petitioner has continued construction in blatant disregard of the statutory process.

¶91

The photographs produced by respondent No.4 in the connected W.P.No.5582/2025 clearly reveal that objections were raised by respondent No.4 since 2023. Despite this, and despite visible endorsements on the building (as seen in Annexure-R.3), the petitioner proceeded with construction using contractors while

¶92

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:27229 WP No. 2776 of 2025 C/W WP No. 5582 of 2025

¶93

HC-KAR

¶94

claiming to be based in Delhi. This was done without responding to the provisional orders on both occasions.

¶95

The records indicate gross violations and deviations exceeding 100% at some locations and over 50% at others. The property was sealed during the pendency of Appeal No.140/2023, as seen in Annexure-S. Following the disposal of the appeal, the petitioner not only resumed but completed interior and exterior works. Annexure-S shows provisional orders affixed to the site, and stone cladding material placed at the location, confirming continued activity. The building was re-sealed after the appeal was dismissed, as evident from Annexure-S.1.

¶96

Despite the post-remand Confirmation Order,

¶97

the petitioner has inducted tenants into the premises, further compounding the illegality.

¶98

In view of these grave and repeated violations,

¶99

this Court must consider whether the petitioner is entitled

¶100

11 -

¶101

NC: 2025:KHC:27229 WP No. 2776 of 2025 C/W WP No. 5582 of 2025

¶102

HC-KAR

¶103

to any equitable relief. The petitioner has neither challenged the second Confirmation Order dated 06.03.2024 nor produced it before this Court.

¶104

Notably, it is the private respondent No.4 in the connected writ petition who has produced the relevant documents, including the provisional orders (AnnexuresK1 and K2) and the Confirmation Order (Annexure-K3). Although these orders form the basis of the petitioner’s challenge in W.P.No.2776/2025, the petitioner continues to contend that he was not heard despite clear material to the contrary and evidence that construction proceeded during pendency of the enquiry.

¶105

Having regard to the foregoing facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to any indulgence. If aggrieved by the orders passed under Section 248 of the BBMP Act, 2020, the petitioner must avail himself of the statutory remedy of appeal in the manner known to law. While this Court has,

¶106

12 -

¶107

NC: 2025:KHC:27229 WP No. 2776 of 2025 C/W WP No. 5582 of 2025

¶108

HC-KAR

¶109

in deserving cases, extended limited interim protection,

¶110

the present facts do not warrant any such equitable relief.

¶111

It is indeed deeply concerning and quite shocking that respondent No.4 has been consistently objecting to the construction undertaken by the petitioner since 2023. Despite filing objections, issuing legal notices, and lodging a formal complaint that led to a full-fledged enquiry, the petitioner, who claims to be residing in Delhi, has continued with the construction activity with remarkable speed and disregard for regulatory norms, operating through a local contractor. The petitioner has evidently exploited the fact of his residence being outside Bengaluru to question the procedural fairness of the enquiry conducted under Section 248 of the BBMP Act, while at the same time ensuring rapid completion of construction in blatant violation of sanctioned plans and setback regulations.

¶112

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:27229 WP No. 2776 of 2025 C/W WP No. 5582 of 2025

¶113

HC-KAR

¶114

The photographs placed on record by

¶115

respondent No.4 paint a grim and alarming picture, quite literally. They reveal that the petitioner has raised a structure so close to the building of the private respondent

¶116

that even air circulation between the two buildings appears virtually impossible. This is not a mere technical deviation; it is a gross and dangerous violation of urban planning norms, which threatens safety, sanitation, and the basic livability of adjoining properties.

¶117

This case is yet another glaring example of the systemic malaise afflicting construction activity in the city of Bengaluru. Unauthorised constructions, brazen violations of sanctioned plans, disregard for building bye-laws, and the use of litigation as a tool to delay enforcement action have become a pervasive menace. Builders and property owners continue to flout the rules with impunity, often completing illegal constructions before the authorities can meaningfully intervene. This Court is routinely confronted with such cases, and

¶118

14 - NC: 2025:KHC:27229 WP No. 2776 of 2025 C/W WP No. 5582 of 2025

¶119

HC-KAR

¶120

unfortunately, despite repeated directions, there appears

¶121

to be no respite. The failure of enforcement mechanisms, coupled with abuse of procedural safeguards and interim reliefs, has emboldened individuals to override public interest and regulatory discipline.

¶122

The conduct of the petitioner in the present case stands as a textbook instance of such abuse. While asserting that he was denied a fair hearing, he has simultaneously overseen, from a distance, the completion of construction that grossly violates setback norms. This conduct not only mocks the authority of statutory bodies like the BBMP but also undermines the administration of justice.

¶123

The petitioner, having violated multiple

¶124

directions issued by the authorities and despite interim restraint orders, has proceeded with construction and even inducted tenants. Such conduct disentitles him from any discretionary relief. If he is aggrieved by the orders

¶125

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:27229 WP No. 2776 of 2025 C/W WP No. 5582 of 2025

¶126

HC-KAR

¶127

impugned, he must challenge them before the appropriate forum. The observations made by the Appellate Authority in confirming the demolition order passed under Section 256 of the BBMP Act, 2020 though lacking clarity are inconsequential in light of the petitioner’s continued noncompliance. Accordingly, the relief sought in W.P.No.2776/2025 is liable to be rejected.

¶128

For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following;

¶129

ORDER

¶130

(i) The writ petition in W.P.No.2776/2025 is dismissed.

¶131

(ii) The writ petition in W.P.No.5582/ 2025 is allowed in part.

¶132

(iii) The officials of the BBMP are directed to enforce the demolition order in accordance with law, by strictly adhering to the procedure prescribed under the BBMP Act, 2020.

¶133

16 - NC: 2025:KHC:27229 WP No. 2776 of 2025 C/W WP No. 5582 of 2025

¶134

HC-KAR

¶135

(iv) Nothing in this order shall preclude the petitioner in W.P.No.2776/2025 from challenging the Provisional Orders dated 21.02.2024 and Confirmation Order dated 06.03.2024, which are evidenced at Annexures-K1 to K3 in W.P.No.5582/2025, in a manner known to law.

¶136

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶137

NBM

¶138

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Shri Manju G Gowda v. the Commissioner Bbmp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Manju G Gowda v. the Commissioner Bbmp

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 H G Basavaraju Vs the Chief Commissioner

Smt. Noor Fathima Jamal Vs Union of India

Mr. Suhas L Vs the Cheif Registrar Births and Deaths

Late Sri. S P Francis Since Deceased by His Lrs Smt. Mary Francis Vs Sri.Hari

Mathrushree Mutyalaya Enterprises Vs the Commissioner

Rajesh Ravi Vs the Chief Commissioner