Disposed¶56

Mr. Zubear Ahmed Sharief v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC12 Dec 2025WP/6842/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (R. Nataraj, J.), order dated 12.12.2025, WP No. 6842 of 2025 (LB-BMP): BBMP respondents 1 and 3 directed to implement the Section 248(3) Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 confirmation order against unauthorised third and fourth floor construction by respondent No.5; any compounding application to be considered with the representation in accordance with law within three months.

What did the court decide?

Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 directed to take necessary action in accordance with law to implement the order passed under Section 248(3) of the Act, 2020; any compounding application filed by respondent No.5 to be considered along with the representation in accordance with law, within three months from receipt of a copy of the order. ¶56

Mr. Zubear Ahmed Sharief Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶56

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to consider the representation dated 05.06.2024 and to demolish the unauthorised 3rd and 4th floor construction put up by respondent No.5 following due process of law. +1 more

¶34

Court's answer

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to take necessary action in accordance with law to implement the order passed under Section 248(3) of the Act, 2020.

¶56

Ratio / Principle

On the face of the order passed under Section 248(3) of the Act, 2020, respondent No.5 has violated the building plan and the FAR norms by putting up construction on the third and fourth floors.

¶51

Key takeaways

Since the appeal filed by respondent No.5 before the appellate authority stands dismissed, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are bound in law to take necessary action to bring the construction put up by respondent No.5 in accordance with the sanctioned plan.ratio¶55
If respondent No.5 has filed any application for compounding the illegal construction, respondent Nos. 1 and 3 shall also consider the representation and proceed in accordance with law; the exercise is to be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶57

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (LB-BMP) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India — petitioners sought mandamus directing BBMP Regional Commissioner and Assistant Executive Engineer to consider representation dated 05.06.2024 and demolish the unauthorised 3rd and 4th floor construction put up by respondent No.5 — khatha amalgamation of properties bearing No.174 series was allegedly effected on forged affidavits/deed, Zakirunnisa having died on 02.01.2019 yet purportedly signing the affidavit dated 18.01.2021 — a confirmation order under Section 248(3) of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 had been passed; respondent No.5's appeal against it was dismissed on 29.04.2023; contempt proceedings CCC No.116/2023 stood dismissed — the Court held that respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are bound in law to bring the construction in accordance with the sanctioned plan — writ petition disposed of directing respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to implement the Section 248(3) order and to consider any compounding application together with the representation in accordance with law within three months.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:52899 WP No. 6842 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 6842 OF 2025 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. ZUBEAR AHMED SHARIEF S/O. M.ABDUL JALEEL, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,

¶9

SMT. SHAKILA NAZ, W/O. NOORULLA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

¶10

BOTH ARE R/A. NO.174/1 AND 174/2, R.V.ROAD, V.V.PURAM, BENGALURU-560 004.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SMT. ARCHANA MURTHY, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGAR PALIKE (BBMP), N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002.

¶16

THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGAR PALIKE (BBMP), KEMPEGOWDA NAGAR SUB-DIVISION, 2^ND FLOOR, WARD NO.143, NAGARA PALIKE BLDG., NO.8, 9^TH MAIN, 9^TH CROSS ROAD, 2^ND BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 011.

¶17

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KEMPEGOWDA NAGAR SUB-DIVISION, 2^ND FLOOR, WARD NO.143, NAGARA PALIKE BLDG.,

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:52899 WP No. 6842 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

H.SIDDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU-560 027.

¶21

THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, KEMPEGOWDA NAGAR SUB-DIVISION, 2^ND FLOOR, WARD NO.143, NAGARA PALIKE BLDG., H.SIDDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU-560 027.

¶22

SMT.NAJMUNNISA (SINCE DEAD BY HER LR'S)

¶23

KHYSER AHMED @ KHYSER AHMED SHARIFF S/O. S.A. SHARIFF, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT.NO.61, TARA 3^RD MAIN, BEHIND NADINI HOTEL, MLA LAYOUT, R.T. NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 032.

¶24

KHADER AHMED SHARIFF S/O. S.A.SHARIFF, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT. NO.30, OBALAPPA STREET, CHIKKA MAVALLI, BENGALURU - 560 004

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. BATHE GOWDA K.V., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4;

¶27

SRI. MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.5 AND 6)

¶28

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER NO.1 DATED 05.06.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND H AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3 TO DEMOLISH THE ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION i.e., 3^RD AND 4^TH FLOORS PUT UP BY THE RESPONDENT NO.5 BY DUE PROCESS OF THE LAW.

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:52899 WP No. 6842 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

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

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

The petitioners have sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the representation dated 05.06.2024 submitted by petitioner No.1 and demolish the illegal construction put up by respondent no.5 by following due process of law.

¶35

(i) The petitioner contends that Mr. Syed Forooq Ahemd is the owner of property bearing No.174 with PID No.61-35-174 measuring 762.50 sq.ft., Mrs. Zakirunnissa is the owner of property bearing No.174/1 with PID No.61-35-174/1 measuring 759.30 sq.ft., Mrs. Mehrunnissa is the owner of property bearing No.174/2 with PID No.61-35-174/2 measuring 590.63 sq.ft., and Miss. Najmunnissa is the owner of property bearing No.174/3 with PID No.61-35-174/3 measuring 989.50 sq.ft. situated at 2^nd Cross, R.V. Road, Bengaluru. The petitioners claim that they represent Mrs. Zakirunnissa and Mrs. Mehrunnissa. They claim that Mrs. Najmunnissa filed an affidavit to amalgamate the above properties measuring

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:52899 WP No. 6842 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

3106.93 sq.ft for the purpose of joint development of the same. Thereafter, the respondents amalgamated the khatha of the properties.

¶40

(ii) It is contended that Mrs. Najmunnissa who was the owner of property bearing No.174/3 measuring 989.50 sq.ft. filed an affidavit before respondent No.4 on 14.10.2020 stating that she was not agreeable to the amalgamation of properties and requested to bifurcate her property. It is further contended that Mrs. Najmunnissa filed another affidavit dated 18.01.2021 purportedly signed by Mr.Syed Farooq Ahamed, Zakirunnissa, Mehrunissa and Najmunnisa seeking de-amalgamation of the properties. The petitioner alleged that the said owners did not sign either the affidavit or the deed of amalgamation and that the signatures found thereon are forged. It is specifically alleged that Zakirunnisa, the mother of the petitioner No.1 died on 02.01.2019 and therefore she could not have signed the affidavit dated 18.01.2021.

¶41

(iii) The respondents acted upon the deed of amalgamation and the affidavits and amalgamated the excluding property of Mrs. Najmunnissa. Thereafter, the

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:52899 WP No. 6842 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

property of Mrs. Najmunnissa was separated and assigned a new property No.174/5. The respondent No.5 being her son, obtained sanction of a building plan to construct a residential house. It is alleged that the construction was put up in violation of the sanctioned plan by deviating the FAR norms and he has put up 3^rd and 4^th floors. The petitioners submitted several representations to take action against the unauthorized construction. However, the respondent did not take any action. The petitioner therefore, filed W.P.No.18161/2022 to consider their representation. The counsel for the respondents in W.P.No.18161/2022 submitted that a confirmation order under Section 248(3) of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 (henceforth referred to as 'Act, 2020' for short) was already passed and that appropriate steps would be taken to implement the same.

¶45

(iv) The petitioner contends that the directions issued in W.P.No.18161/2022 were not complied with and therefore they initiated Contempt proceedings in CCC No.116/2023 which came to be dismissed in view of an appeal filed by respondent No.5 against the order passed under Section 248(3) of the Act, 2020. The petitioner contends that appeal filed by respondent

¶46

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:52899 WP No. 6842 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

No.5 was dismissed on 29.04.2023 upholding the order of confirmation. The petitioners then submitted representations dated 05.06.2024 and requested the respondents to act in accordance with law. However, the respondents have not taken any action. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court seeking for a direction.

¶49

The learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 submits that steps would be taken to implement the order passed under Section 248(3) of Act, 2020. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6 submits that respondent No.5 would file appropriate application before the respondents No.1 to 4 for compounding the deviation and prays that suitable directions be issued to respondent No.1 to 4 to consider the representations.

¶50

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶51

It is apparent from the order passed under Section 248(3) of the Act, 2020 that the respondent No.5 has violated the building plan and also the FAR norms and has put up the

¶52

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:52899 WP No. 6842 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

construction on third and fourth floor. The appeal filed by respondent No.5 before the appellate authority is dismissed. Therefore, the respondent Nos.1 to 4 are bound in law to take necessary action to bring the construction put up by the respondent No.5 in accordance with the sanctioned plan.

¶56

In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed off. Respondent Nos.1 and 3 are directed to take necessary action in accordance with law to implement the order passed under Section 248(3) of the Act, 2020.

¶57

It is made clear that if respondent No.5 has filed any application for compounding the illegal construction, the respondent No.1 and 3 shall also consider the representation and proceed in accordance with law. This shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶58

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶59

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

¶60

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
No specific order is impugned; the grievance is inaction by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on the petitioners' representation dated 05.06.2024 despite the confirmation order under Section 248(3) of the Act, 2020 having been upheld in appeal on 29.04.2023.¶48
Prior proceeding
Owners filed an affidavit to amalgamate properties aggregating 3106.93 sq.ft for joint development; the respondents amalgamated the khatha of the properties.¶39
Prior proceeding
Mrs. Najmunnissa, owner of property No.174/3, filed an affidavit before respondent No.4 on 14.10.2020 stating she was not agreeable to the amalgamation and requested bifurcation of her property.¶40
Prior proceeding
An affidavit dated 18.01.2021 purportedly signed by all four owners sought de-amalgamation; the petitioners allege the signatures were forged, since Zakirunnisa had died on 02.01.2019 and could not have signed.¶40
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.5 obtained sanction of a building plan and allegedly constructed in violation of the sanctioned plan by deviating FAR norms, putting up 3rd and 4th floors; representations to the respondents drew no action.¶44
Prior proceeding
Petitioners filed W.P.No.18161/2022 seeking consideration of their representation; the respondents' counsel therein stated that a confirmation order under Section 248(3) of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 had already been passed and appropriate steps would be taken to implement it.¶44
Prior proceeding
Alleging non-compliance with the directions in W.P.No.18161/2022, the petitioners initiated contempt proceedings in CCC No.116/2023, which were dismissed in view of the appeal filed by respondent No.5 against the order passed under Section 248(3) of the Act, 2020.¶45
Prior proceeding
The appeal filed by respondent No.5 against the order under Section 248(3) was dismissed on 29.04.2023, upholding the order of confirmation.¶46
Prior proceeding
Petitioners submitted representations dated 05.06.2024 requesting action in accordance with law; the respondents took no action, prompting the present writ petition.¶48

Mr. Zubear Ahmed Sharief v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Zubear Ahmed Sharief v. the 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

M/S Durgi Enterprises Vs the Additional District Election Officer

M/S Biopharma Laboratories Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Pavithra Ravikumar Vs State of Karnataka

Mr.Sri Narasaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Nanje Gowda. S. M. Vs the Panchayat Development Officer

Sri Bimaaiah N M Vs the State of Karnataka