Partly allowed¶45

Mr Rajendra Krishna v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC5 Dec 2025WP/7931/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

BBMP; illegal construction; deviation from sanctioned plan; Section 313 Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act 2020 notice; Section 243 Greater Bengaluru Governance Act 2024; demolition; regularisation; property tax assessment; Jayanagar Bengaluru; neighbour dispute; writ petition allowed in part; hearing before action; three-month compliance timeline.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed in part: respondent Nos.1 and 2 directed to consider the petitioner's representations and take appropriate action in accordance with law, particularly under Section 243 of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024, after hearing respondent Nos.3 and 4, within three months from receipt of a certified copy of the order; pending interlocutory application disposed. ¶45

Mr Rajendra Krishna Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent Nos.1 and 2 should be directed to initiate steps to demolish the construction put up by respondent Nos.3 and 4, allegedly in violation of the sanctioned plan, and not to regularise the construction or assess the property to tax.

¶30

Court's answer

Respondent Nos.1 and 2, having initiated proceedings by calling upon respondent Nos.3 and 4 to produce documents pursuant to the notice, should not have kept quiet but must have followed it up by inspecting the property of respondent Nos.3 and 4 and, if there was any deviation, taken necessary proceedings as provided under Section 243 of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024.

¶42

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is allowed in part; respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to consider the representations of the petitioner and take appropriate action in accordance with law, more particularly as provided under Section 243 of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024.

¶46

Key takeaways

Before respondent Nos.1 and 2 take any action under Section 243 of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024, they shall hear respondent Nos.3 and 4 and pass appropriate orders.ratio¶47
The action directed shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.ratio¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Neighbour's writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking demolition of construction put up by respondent Nos.3 and 4 at No.977, 23rd Main Road, 4th 'T' Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru, allegedly in violation of the sanctioned plan, and a direction not to regularise the construction or assess the property to tax. The Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (respondent Nos.1 and 2) had issued two notices to respondent Nos.3 and 4, one under Section 313 of the BBMP Act, 2020, but took no further action despite the petitioner's representations. Held, allowing the petition in part: the Palike, having called upon respondent Nos.3 and 4 to produce documents, ought not to have kept quiet but must follow up by inspecting the property and, if any deviation is found, take necessary proceedings under Section 243 of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were directed to consider the petitioner's representations and take appropriate action in accordance with law, particularly under Section 243, after hearing respondent Nos.3 and 4, within three months from receipt of a certified copy of the order. Pending interlocutory application disposed.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:51438 WP No. 7931 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 7931 OF 2025 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. RAJENDRA KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, SON OF R.S. KRISHNA RAO RESIDING AT NO.993, 23^RD MAIN ROAD 4^TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 041.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. B.R. VISWANATH, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SACHIN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N R SQUARE, BENGALURU 560002.

¶14

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BBMP, WARD NO.168 JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE 560041.

¶15

MR. VINOD KUMAR N NO.977, 23^RD MAIN ROAD 4^TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE 560 041.

¶16

MRS. VARALAKSHMI M V W/O VINOD KUMAR N NO.977, 23^RD MAIN ROAD

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:51438 WP No. 7931 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

4^TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE -560 041

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. VAIBHAV RAVI MALIMATH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2; SRI. AKKI MANJUNATH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 TO INITIATE STEPS TO IMMEDIATELY STOP THE ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION OF RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4 AND TO DEMOLISH THE ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN CARRIED OUT AT THE PROPERTY OF RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 IN VIOLATION OF THE SANCTIONED PLAN AND ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:51438 WP No. 7931 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

The petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to initiate steps to demolish the illegal construction put up by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 in their property bearing No.977, 23^rd Main Road, 4^th 'T' block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru, and not to regularize the construction put up by them and not to assess the property to tax.

¶31

The respondent Nos.3 and 4 are the neighbours of the petitioner who purportedly have put up some construction in their property, allegedly in violation of the building plan sanctioned by the respondent Nos.1 and 2. It is the claim of the petitioner that despite several representations to the respondent Nos.1 and 2, they have not taken any action. It is contended that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have issued two notices to the respondent Nos.3 and 4 out of which, one is under Section 313 of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 (for short, 'the BBMP Act') but have not taken any action thereafter.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:51438 WP No. 7931 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that necessary action would be taken against respondent Nos.3 and 4 after they furnish the documents pursuant to the notice issued under Section 313 of the BBMP Act.

¶36

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 submitted that the construction put up by them is complete in all respects and that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 are residing there. He also contends that the construction is in accordance with the sanctioned plan.

¶37

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4.

¶38

There is no dispute that the petitioner is the neighbour of the respondent Nos.3 and 4. There is also no dispute that respondent Nos.3 and 4 have constructed a building in their property. While the respondent Nos.3 and 4 claim that the construction is in accordance with the sanctioned plan, the petitioner contends to the contrary. The

¶39

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:51438 WP No. 7931 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

petitioner had filed representations before the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to take action against the construction put up by the respondent Nos.3 and 4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 having initiated proceedings by calling upon the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to produce documents, should not have kept quiet but must have followed it up by inspecting the property of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 and if there was any deviation, to take necessary proceedings as provided under Section 243 of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024.

¶43

In that view of the matter, this writ petition stands

¶44

disposed off on the following terms:

¶45

i). The Writ Petition is allowed in part.

¶46

ii). Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to consider the representations of the petitioner and take appropriate action in accordance with law, more particularly, as provided under Section 243 of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024.

¶47

iii). It is needless to mention that before the respondent Nos.1 and 2 take any action under Section 243 of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024, they shall hear

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:51438 WP No. 7931 of 2025

¶49

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

respondent Nos.3 and 4 and pass appropriate orders.

¶52

iv). This shall be done within three months from

¶53

the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶54