Disposed¶51

Satya Acharya v. the Chief Commissioner

Karnataka HC4 Dec 2025WP/6691/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (R. Nataraj J, 04.12.2025), WP 6691/2025 (LB-BMP): mandamus to BBMP to enforce demolition confirmation order dated 20.01.2025 under S.248(3) r/w S.356(1) BBMP Act refused because builder's Appeal No.99/2025 against the S.248(1)/(2)/(3) orders was pending before the Appellate Authority under S.253 BBMP Act; Chief Commissioner, Greater Bengaluru Authority directed to decide the appeal within three months.

What did the court decide?

No mandamus issued to respondent Nos.1 to 6 to implement the demolition order dated 20.01.2025; instead, the Appellate Authority (Chief Commissioner, Greater Bengaluru Authority) is directed to dispose of Appeal No.99/2025 within three months from receipt of a certified copy of the order. ¶51

Satya Acharya Vs the Chief Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶51

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued directing respondent Nos.1 to 6 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 26.11.2024 and demolish the unauthorized construction put up by respondent No.7 in the petition schedule property. +1 more

¶35

Ratio / Principle

Since the matter is pending before the Appellate Authority under Section 253 of the BBMP Act, no direction can be issued to respondent Nos.1 to 6 to implement the order dated 20.01.2025 passed by respondent No.2 under Section 248(3) read with Section 356(1) of the BBMP Act.

¶51

Key takeaways

The Appellate Authority, namely the Chief Commissioner, Greater Bengaluru Authority, is directed to dispose of Appeal No.99/2025 as early as possible, at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.ratio¶51

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ of mandamus sought by an adjoining owner (aged 78) directing BBMP officials (respondent Nos.1 to 6) to consider her representation dated 26.11.2024 and demolish the unauthorized residential construction put up by respondent No.7. Following a notice dated 27.11.2024 under Section 313 of the BBMP Act, respondent No.2 issued a provisional order dated 03.01.2025 under Section 248(1) and a notice dated 03.01.2025 under Section 248(2), followed by a confirmation order dated 20.01.2025 under Section 248(3) read with Section 356(1) directing demolition. Respondent No.7 filed Appeal No.99/2025 against those orders before the Chief Commissioner, BBMP, Bengaluru, which was not disputed by counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 6. Held: while the appeal is pending before the Appellate Authority under Section 253 of the BBMP Act, no direction can be issued to respondent Nos.1 to 6 to implement the demolition order dated 20.01.2025; the Chief Commissioner, Greater Bengaluru Authority was directed to dispose of Appeal No.99/2025 as early as possible, at any rate within three months from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:50905 WP No. 6691 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 6691 OF 2025 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SATYA ACHAYYA D/O K.C. ACHAYYA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, R/AT NO.19, 6^TH CROSS, NANDI DURGA ROAD EXTENSION, JAYAMAHAL, WARD NO-63 BENGALURU-560066

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. HARISH B. NARASAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. AMITH NAYAK, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SACHIN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP) N.R SQUARE, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560002

¶14

ZONAL COMMISSIONER (EAST) BBMP EAST ZONE, 10^TH FLOOR, PUBLIC UTILITY BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560001

¶15

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING (ADTP) BBMP EAST ZONE, 10^TH FLOOR, PUBLIC UTILITY BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560001

¶16

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (VASANTNAGAR SUB-DIVISION) BBMP EAST ZONE,

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:50905 WP No. 6691 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

3^RD CROSS, BALLAPPA GARDENS,

¶20

N.K.PALYA, BENGALURU-560051

¶21

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (AEE) BBMP VASANTH NAGAR SUB-DIVISION 3^RD CROSS, BALLAPPA GARDENS, N.K.PALYA, BENGALURU - 560051

¶22

ASSISTANT ENGINEER (AE) WARD 63 3^RD CROSS, BALLAPPA GARDENS, N.K.PALYA, BENGALURU - 560051

¶23

MR. MAHBOOB SHARIFF SAFEER AGE: MAJOR S/O: NOT KNOWN SITE NO. 1, 6^TH CROSS, NANDI DURGA ROAD EXTENSION, JAYAMAHAL, WARD NO.63, BENGALURU-560046

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SMT. SUMANGALA GURUDEV GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 6;

¶26

SRI. NARAYANA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. P.N.RAJESWARA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.7)

¶27

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY FROM THE FILE OF THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 6 AND ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 6 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 26.11.2024 AT

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:50905 WP No. 6691 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

ANNEXURE-A TO THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND EXPEDITIOUSLY AND ETC.

¶32

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

¶33

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶34

ORAL ORDER

¶35

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Nos.1 to 6 to consider her representation dated 26.11.2024 and demolish the unauthorized construction put up by the respondent No.7 in the petition schedule property.

¶36

The petitioner claims that the respondent No.7 being a owner of a property on the same street where she is living, has put up unauthorized construction of a residential building. She contends that despite repeated emails to the concerned authorities to stop the on-going illegal construction, respondent Nos.1 to 6 did not take action. Later, it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that a notice dated 27.11.2024 under Section 313 of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

¶37

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:50905 WP No. 6691 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Act, 2020 (for short, 'the BBMP Act') was issued by the respondent No.5 to the respondent No.7 summoning some documents. The said notice was served on the respondent No.7 on 10.12.2024. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 issued a provisional order dated 03.01.2025 under Section 248(1) of the BBMP Act and issued a notice dated 03.01.2025 under Section 248(2) of the BBMP Act to the respondent No.7. This was followed by a confirmation order dated 20.01.2025 under Section 248(3) read with Section 356(1) of the BBMP Act passed by the respondent No.2 directing the respondent No.7 to demolish the unauthorized construction put up by him in the petition schedule property, the details of which were mentioned therein. The petitioner contends that even after 10 months, the respondent Nos.1 to 6 have not taken any action to demolish the unauthorized construction. The petitioner is, therefore, before this Court seeking for a direction to the respondent Nos.1 to 6 to consider her representation dated 26.11.2024 submitted to the Assistant Executive Engineer, BBMP, Shivajinagar, Bengaluru, and demolish the unauthorized construction put up by the respondent No.7 over the petition schedule property.

¶41

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:50905 WP No. 6691 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above contentions and submitted that the respondent Nos.1 to 6 owe a duty to ensure compliance of the order under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act. He contends that since the respondent Nos.1 to 6 have not taken any action against the respondent No.7, it gives an impression that the respondent Nos.1 to 6 are hand in glove with the respondent No.7.

¶45

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.7 has today filed a memo dated 04.09.2025 and enclosed therewith a copy of Appeal memo in Appeal No.99/2025 filed by the respondent No.7 against the provisional order dated 03.01.2025 passed by the respondent No.2 under Section 248(1) of the BBMP Act and the notice dated 03.01.2025 issued by the respondent No.2 under Section 248(2) of the BBMP Act and the order dated 20.01.2025 passed by the respondent No.2 under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, before the Chief Commissioner, BBMP, Bengaluru. Therefore, he contends that until the said appeal is disposed off, no direction can be issued to the respondent Nos.1 to 6 to implement the order dated 20.01.2025 passed by the respondent No.2 under Section 248(3) read with Section 356(1) of the BBMP Act.

¶46

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:50905 WP No. 6691 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 6 does not

¶50

dispute the fact that respondent No.7 has filed an appeal before the Chief Commissioner, BBMP, Bengaluru.

¶51

In view of the aforesaid, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for respondent No.7, respondent Nos.1 to 6 cannot be directed to take any action as the matter is now seized before the Appellate Authority under Section 253 of the BBMP Act. In that view of the matter, no direction can be issued to respondent Nos.1 to 6 to implement the order dated 20.01.2025 passed by the respondent No.2 under Section 248(3) read with Section 356(1) of the BBMP Act. However, since the respondent No.7 claims that an appeal is filed before the Appellate Authority, it is appropriate to direct the Appellate Authority, namely, the Chief Commissioner, Greater Bengaluru Authority, to dispose off the Appeal No.99/2025 as early as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶52

SMA/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60

Satya Acharya v. the Chief Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satya Acharya v. the Chief 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

Mr. Udayakumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Bhagya Jyothi Vidya Samsthe (Regd) Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Popular Advertisers Vs State of Karnataka

M Mukambika Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Suman v Vs the Commissioner

M/S Bhartiya Urban Private Limited Vs the State of Karnataka