Dismissed¶51

Smt H M Vaidehi v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC4 Jun 2026WA/49/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC Division Bench (D K Singh & T.M. Nadaf JJ.) dismisses writ appeal against dismissal of WP 34032/2018: petitioner built basement and third floor in excess of sanctioned plan (sanction only for Stilt + Ground + 2 floors + terrace) at Doddaballapur; Commissioner's inspection in petitioner's presence confirmed excess construction; appeal dismissed without cost; unauthorized construction, sanctioned building plan, City Municipal Council Doddaballapura.

What did the court decide?

It is not denied on the facts that the petitioner constructed two extra floors — the basement and the third floor — which are not part of the sanctioned building plan. ¶43

Smt H M Vaidehi Vs the Commissioner — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶51

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 27.07.2023 dismissing WP No. 34032/2018 should be set aside and the writ petition allowed. +1 more

¶31

Court's answer

Finding no error of facts or law in the impugned judgment requiring interference by this Court in appeal, the Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal without cost.

¶51

Ratio / Principle

It is not denied on the facts that the petitioner constructed two extra floors — the basement and the third floor — which are not part of the sanctioned building plan.

¶43

Key takeaways

The Commissioner's inspection, conducted in the petitioner's presence, established that sanction covered only Stilt, Ground + 2 floors and terrace, whereas basement, stilt, ground, first, second and third floors were built — i.e., the basement and third floor were extra beyond the sanctioned plan.ratio¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal No. 49 of 2024 (LB-RES), High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (Division Bench: D K Singh and T.M. Nadaf, JJ.; judgment per D K Singh, J.), decided 04.06.2026. Smt H. Vaidehi appealed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act against the order dated 27.07.2023 dismissing her writ petition WP No. 34032/2018, by which she had disputed the finding of the Commissioner, City Municipal Council, Doddaballapura, of unauthorised construction. The Municipal Council had, by order dated 01.03.2018, directed that the building be brought in conformity with the sanctioned plan; the learned Single Judge had ordered an inspection on 21.07.2023 with measurements taken in the petitioner's presence; and the Commissioner reported that sanction was for Stilt, Ground + 2 floors and terrace only, while basement, stilt, ground, first, second and third floors had been built — the basement and third floor being extra. The Division Bench found no error of fact or law in the impugned judgment and dismissed the appeal without cost; pending applications were disposed of as not surviving.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:26495-DB WA No. 49 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 49 OF 2024 (LB-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT H.VAIDEHI W/O M.S. JAGADEESH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO. 189/1, 5^TH BLOCK, 7^TH MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 041

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY MS.CHETHANA MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MANJUNATH B S (SUO ASSTS), ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER CITY MUNICIPALITY, DODDABALLAPURA - 561 203 BANGALORE RURAL.

¶16

MR. LAKSHMANA S/O MR. MUNIDEV RAO AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 1584, HEMAVATHIPETE, DODDABALLAPUR, BENGALURU RURAL - 561 203.

¶17

MR. BANUCHANDRA RAO S/O MR. MUNI DEVA RAO, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 1584,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:26495-DB WA No. 49 of 2024

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

3^RD WARD,MARKET SQUARE HEMAVATHINAGAR, NEAR SOUNDARYAMAHAL THEATRE, DODDABALLAPURA, BENGALURU RURAL - 561 203.

¶22

MR. K.R.KRISHNA S/O MR. RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, NO. 2756, 22^ND WARD, DEVANGAPETE, DODDABALLAPUR, BENGALURU RURAL - 561 203.

¶23

MRS. K R KUSUMA W/O MR. M P N VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 2863, NEAR SOUNDARYA MAHAL THEATRE, HEMAVATHIPETE, DODDABALLAPUR, BENGALURU RURAL 561 203.

¶24

MRS. RENUKA W/O MR. CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO. 2757, HEMAVATHIPETE, DODDABALLAPURA, BENGALURU RURAL 561 203.

¶25

MRS. K S UMADEVI W/O MR. M P C RAMAMURTHY AGED AOBUT 66 YEARS, R/AT 2864, OLD BUS STAND CROSS, WARD NO. 22, HEMAVATHIPETE, DODDABALLAPUR, BENGALURU RURAL 561 203.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY MS. DEEPU.G, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SRINIVASA K.N, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. SIDDHARTH.B.MUCHANDI, ADVOCATE FOR R2- R7)

¶28

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:26495-DB WA No. 49 of 2024

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN WP No-34032/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.07.2023 AND ALLOW THE WP No-34032/2018 GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HONBLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶32

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶33

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶34

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶35

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶36

Heard Madam Chethana Manjunath, learned counsel

¶37

appearing on behalf of Sri.Manjunath, learned counsel for appellant.

¶38

2. Madam Chethana Manjunath though has argued

¶39

brilliantly and made all efforts to persuade us, the facts of the case are such that all her efforts have not been fruitful

¶40

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:26495-DB WA No. 49 of 2024

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

inasmuch as there is no denial from the facts that the petitioner has constructed two extra floors, that is, the basement and third floor, which are not part of the sanctioned building plan.

¶44

The Municipal Council, Doddaballapur, Bengaluru Rural has issued order dated 01.03.2018, directing them to bring the building as per the sanctioned plan. The petitioner filed the writ petition disputing the findings of the Commissioner, City Municipal Council, Doddaballapura. To test the veracity of the assertion made by the petitioner, the learned Single Judge vide order dated 27.07.2023 directed the Commissioner of City Municipal Council, Doddaballapura, to cause an inspection of the building in question on 21.07.2023 at 11.00 a.m. and to take the measurements in the presence of the petitioner.

¶45

In compliance of the said direction, the Commissioner City Municipal Council, Doddaballapura had

¶46

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:26495-DB WA No. 49 of 2024

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

submitted report stating therein that though the sanction was given to the petitioner to put up construction of Stilt, Ground + 2 floors and terrace only, however the petitioner had put up basement, stilt, ground, first floor, second floor and third floor. Thus, the petitioner has put up basement and third floor extra than what was sanctioned in the building plan.

¶49

In view of the factual finding of the Commissioner, who made the inspection in presence of the petitioner of the building in question and the photographs furnished along with the report, the learned Single Judge

¶50

has held that the number of floors constructed by the petitioner are in excess of the sanctioned building plan. In view of the same, the writ petition has been dismissed.

¶51

We find no error of facts or law in the impugned judgment, which requires an interference by this Court, sitting in an appeal and therefore we dismiss this appeal, however, without cost.

¶52

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:26495-DB WA No. 49 of 2024

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55