Disposed¶45

Habitat Splendour Owners Association v. Greater Bengaluru Authority

Karnataka HC19 Nov 2025WP/34665/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC, 19.11.2025, R. Nataraj J., WP No.34665 of 2025 (LB-RES), Articles 226 & 227; Greater Bengaluru Authority inspection/unauthorised-construction notice dated 11.11.2025 quash sought; disposal with directions to consider petitioner's reply; no precipitative action until reply considered; no merits opinion; interim protection; pending I.As. disposed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's reply to the notice dated 11.11.2025 and pass appropriate orders; restraint on taking any precipitative action against the petitioner until the reply is considered; respondents otherwise left free to act since no opinion expressed on merits. ¶45

Habitat Splendour Owners Association Vs Greater… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether the notice dated 11.11.2025 (Annexure-A) issued by respondent No.2, which led to inspection of the apartment complex, should be quashed. +1 more

¶39

Court's answer

The writ petition is disposed of, directing respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider the reply submitted by the petitioner to the notice dated 11.11.2025 and pass appropriate orders.

¶45

Ratio / Principle

The Court expressly clarified that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, and respondent Nos.1 and 2 remain at liberty to take suitable action against the petitioner.

¶46

Key takeaways

Until the reply filed by the petitioner is considered, respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall not take any precipitative action against the petitioner.ratio¶46
Pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of following disposal of the writ petition.ratio¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Habitat Splendour Owners Association (registered under the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972) moved the High Court of Karnataka (W.P. 34665/2025, LB-RES) against a notice bearing No.GRABEPRA/SAKAAA/DOUV/142/2025-26 dated 11.11.2025 (Annexure-A) issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Greater Bengaluru Authority, alleging construction in the schedule property without a plan from respondent No.1 and proposing survey, mahazar and inspection on 14.11.2025. The Association contended the complex was built per the plan sanctioned by the erstwhile City Municipal Council, Mahadevapura (modified 28.02.2005) with an occupancy certificate issued; a 2013 public-road encroachment dispute had been routed to the Civil Court (O.S.No.495/2017, pending), and a third party had complained to BBMP in 2017. Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 agreed to consider the petitioner's reply dated 13.11.2025 in accordance with law. Justice R. Nataraj disposed of the petition directing respondents 1 and 2 to consider the reply and pass appropriate orders, expressly recording no opinion on merits, permitting suitable action thereafter, and restraining precipitative action until the reply is considered; pending I.As. were disposed of as not surviving. (Notice to respondent No.3 was dispensed with vide order dated 19.11.2025.)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:47770 WP No. 34665 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 34665 OF 2025 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

HABITAT SPLENDOUR OWNERS ASSOCIATION REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA APARTMENT OWNERSHIP ACT, 1972, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT ITPL MAIN ROAD, KUNDALAHALLI, BROOKEFIELD, NEAR CMR INSTITUTE, BANGALORE-560 037, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, MR. UPANSHU SINGHAL

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. DHANANJAY JOSHI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. KAVITHA DAMODARAN, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY BANGALORE EAST ZONE, MAHADEVPURA ZONE-1, DHODANEKUNDI SUB DIVISION, NEXT TO VINAYAKA TEMPLE, AECES LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 037.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY, DHODANEKUNDI SUB DIVISION, BENGALURU-560 037.

¶15

M/S GOPALAN ENTERPRISES (SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP) NO.05, RICHMOND ROAD,

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:47770 WP No. 34665 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

BENGALURU-560 025. REPRESENTED BY PROPRIETOR

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2;

¶21

VIDE ORDER DATED 19.11.2025, NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.3 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH IMPUGNED NOTICE BEARING NO.GRABEPRA/SAKAAA/DOUV/142/2025-26, DATED 11.11.2025, BEING ANNEXURE-A HEREIN, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner has assailed a notice bearing

¶27

No.UÉæÃ¨É¥Áæ/¸ÀPÁC/zÉÆG«/142/2025-26 dated 11.11.2025 issued by

¶28

the respondent No.2 to inspect the building constructed by it on 14.11.2025.

¶29

(i) The petitioner contends that the respondent

¶30

No.3 has developed a multi dwelling residential apartment in line with the plan sanctioned by the erstwhile City Municipal Council, Mahadevapura. It is contended that the plan so

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:47770 WP No. 34665 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

sanctioned was modified on 28.02.2005, following which, an occupancy certificate was also issued. It contends that in the year 2013, the predecessor of respondent No.1 had alleged that the apartment so constructed had encroached into a public road and therefore, proposed to demolish a portion of the compound wall. The petitioner then questioned the action of the predecessor of respondent No.1 in W.P.No.4294/2013, which was disposed off directing the petitioner to approach the Civil Court, consequent to which, O.S.No.495/2017 was filed and the same is pending consideration before the Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru.

¶34

(ii) It is also alleged that a third party had filed a complaint with the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike in the year 2017 alleging that the construction put up was illegal. It is contended that on 11.11.2025, the respondent No.2 had issued a notice alleging that the petitioner is undertaking construction in the schedule property without obtaining plan from the respondent No.1 and that it wanted to conduct a survey and draw mahazar. The petitioner replied to the said notice on 13.11.2025. However, on 14.11.2025 without considering the reply, the authorities of the respondent No.1

¶35

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:47770 WP No. 34665 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

visited the schedule property along with the owner of the land and inspected the apartment complex, though they did not draw any mahazar.

¶39

(iii) The petitioner is therefore, before this Court challenging the notice dated 11.11.2025.

¶40

The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the apartment complex has come in the eye of a storm either at the instance of the respondent No.3 or at the instance of erstwhile owner or some busy bodies. He contends that the apartment complex is constructed in accordance with the plan sanctioned by the erstwhile City Municipal Council, Mahadevapura and that an occupancy certificate is also issued by the City Municipal Council, Mahadevapura. He also submits that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have no authority to inspect the property of the petitioner. He contends that all these activities are done at the instance of certain vested interests and that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are playing second fiddle.

¶41

The learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that if the petitioner has filed a reply to the notice

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:47770 WP No. 34665 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

dated 11.11.2025, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 would consider the same in accordance with law and if need be, would take necessary action in accordance with law.

¶45

In view of the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2, this petition stands disposed off directing the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider the reply submitted by the petitioner to the notice dated 11.11.2025 and pass appropriate orders.

¶46

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and therefore, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are at liberty to take suitable action against the petitioner. However, until reply filed by the petitioner is considered, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall not take any precipitative action against the petitioner.

¶47

In view of disposal of the writ petition, pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and the same stand disposed off.

¶48

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶49

PMR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41

Habitat Splendour Owners Association v. Greater Bengaluru Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Habitat Splendour Owners Association v. Greater Bengaluru Authority

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

B T Bhagyamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Balakrishna B L., Vs the Panchayath Development Officer

Surendra K Alias Sachin Vs the State of Karnataka

Halu Utpadakara Mahila Sahakari Sanga Niyamitha Vs the State of Karnataka

Tobby Simon Vs the State of Karnataka

Sundaresha C a Vs Secretary