Mr. Sudarshan Shastry Vs the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:47380 WP No. 55514 of 2018

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 55514 OF 2018 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. SUDARSHAN SHASTRY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O MR. ANIL KUMAR SHASTRY PRESENTLY R/AT NO.16 GOD'S GIFT APARTMENT, OWNERS COURT LAYOUT WEST, KASAVANAHALLI, WARD NO.150 BENGALURU-560 037

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. NARAYANA K., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N R SQUARE, MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU-560 002. (REPTD. BY ITS COMMISSIONER)

¶14

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MARATHAHALLI SUB DIVISION MAHADEVAPURA, BBMP, MAHADEVAPURA BENGALURU-560 037

¶15

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H. DEVENDRAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH AND DECLARE THE NOTICES DATED 25.09.2018 BEARING REF. NO.BBMP/SKA/MUV/W150/PR/109/2018-19 (ANNEXURE-E) AND THE NOTICES DATED 15.11.2018 BEARING REF.

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:47380 WP No. 55514 of 2018

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

NOS.SaKaNiAa(MUV)PO/04/2018-19 AND REF. SaKaNiAa(MUV)PO/2018-19 (ANNEXURE-H), ISSUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT AS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND UNSUSTAINABLE UNDER LAW.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

The petitioner has challenged notice bearing

¶23

No.¸ÀA:©©JA¦/¸ÀPÁC/ªÀiÁG«/ªÁ150/¦.Dgï./109/2018-19 dated

¶24

25.09.2018 issued by the respondent No.2 under Section 308 of the of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (for short, 'the KMC Act') and the notice bearing No.¸ÀASÉå: ¸À.PÁ.¤.C(ªÀiÁG«)¦.N/04/2018-19 dated 15.11.2018 issued by the respondent No.2 under Section 321(1) of the KMC Act.

¶25

The petitioner claims that he is the owner of the site bearing No.16 formed out of land in Sy. No.25/1 situate at Kasavanahalli village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. He applied for sanction of the building plan, and the concerned Planning Officer, after examining the documents furnished, granted sanction on 23.11.2013 for construction of a residential building. The petitioner claims that the construction was put up

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:47380 WP No. 55514 of 2018

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

in accordance with the sanctioned plan, and that the municipal corporation thereafter assessed the building to tax.

¶29

He claims that he received a notice dated 25.09.2018 under Section 308 of the KMC Act, calling upon him to produce documents in support of the construction put up. The petitioner submitted his reply on 28.09.2018, pursuant to which respondent No.2 issued another letter dated 15.11.2018 directing him to furnish the requisite documents, failing which action would be initiated. On 15.11.2018 itself, respondent No.2 issued two notices under Sections 321(1) and 321(2) of the KMC Act alleging that the petitioner had put up construction unauthorisedly and in violation of the sanctioned plan.

¶30

The petitioner therefore, being aggrieved by the

¶31

said notices, is before this Court.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above contentions and submits that the construction put up by the petitioner is in accordance with law and that the impugned notices are issued in haste without awaiting the petitioner to furnish the documents. He further submits that while the notice dated 25.09.2018 called upon the petitioner to furnish

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:47380 WP No. 55514 of 2018

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

documents, the impugned notices dated 15.11.2018 were issued thereafter without affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. He therefore contends that the impugned notices are liable to be set aside.

¶37

The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the writ petition is premature, as no action is initiated under Section 321(3) of the KMC Act. He submits that, even before any action could be taken, the petitioner approached this Court and secured an interim order staying the notices. He further contends that the construction put up by the petitioner is not in accordance with the sanctioned plan, as indicated in the notices issued, and therefore prays that liberty be reserved to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶38

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶39

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner has approached this Court in haste even before an order is passed under Section 321(3) of the

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:47380 WP No. 55514 of 2018

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

KMC Act. The petitioner was required to submit his reply to the notices under Sections 321(1) and 321(2) of the KMC Act and thereafter to challenge any order that may be passed by respondent No.2.

¶43

In that view of the matter, no relief can be granted to the petitioner, as the petitioner has approached this Court at a premature stage. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶44

It is open for the petitioner to file his reply to the notices issued by respondent No.2 under Section 321(1) and 321(2) of KMC Act. It is open for the respondents to take suitable measures as provided in law after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner. This shall be complied within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶45

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶46

sma-para No.1 HJ-para Nos.2 till the end List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50

Mr. Sudarshan Shastry v. the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Sudarshan Shastry 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 Srikanth Chowdary Marri @ Srikanth Vs the Chief Commissioner

Girish Kumar T M Vs Deputy Commissioner

Smt Muniyamma Since Deceased by Her Lrs Vs Sri Muninarasimhaiah

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