Disposed¶41

Smt. Shylaja M v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Apr 2026WP/10560/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Greater Bengaluru Governance Act 2024; Sections 243(3)(e), 244(1) and 250; demolition/removal-of-construction order; order passed without issuance of notice; building bye-laws/sanctioned plan; writ of certiorari; Articles 226 & 227; alternative and efficacious remedy; Appellate Authority; bar on precipitative action for six weeks; Bengaluru West City Corporation; Greater Bengaluru Authority; State of Karnataka Department of Urban Development; interim protection pending appeal; NC: 2026:KHC:18215.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority under Section 250 of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024; respondent Nos.2 and 3 restrained from taking any precipitative action against the petitioner for six weeks or until the Appellate Authority passes an order, whichever is earlier.

Smt. Shylaja M Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 04.03.2026 passed by Respondent No.3 under Sections 243(3)(e) and 244(1) of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024, directing removal of construction without issuance of notice, should be quashed by writ of certiorari. +1 more

¶31

Court's answer

Respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall not take any precipitative action against the petitioner for a period of six weeks from the date of this order or till an order is passed by the Appellate Authority, whichever is earlier.

¶42

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition stands disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority under Section 250 of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024.

¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (M.I. Arun, J.), WP No.10560 of 2026 (LB-BMP), decided 02.04.2026: Smt. Shylaja M challenged the order dated 04.03.2026 (Nos. Ja.Aa/RaRaNaVa/P.R/71/2025-26 & Ja.Aa/RaRaNaVa/C.O/71/2025-26) of Respondent No.3, Bengaluru West City Corporation, passed as per Annexure-F under Sections 243(3)(e) and 244(1) of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024, stated to direct removal of construction put up by her without issuance of notice, praying for a writ of certiorari under Articles 226 & 227. Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 pointed to an alternative remedy under Section 250 of the Act. The Court disposed of the petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to appeal to the Appellate Authority under Section 250, and directed respondent Nos.2 and 3 not to take precipitative action for six weeks or till the Appellate Authority passes an order, whichever is earlier. NC: 2026:KHC:18215.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:18215 WP No. 10560 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.10560 OF 2026 (LB-BMP)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. SHYLAJA M W/O SRI THIMMEGOWDA H AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, MATHRUSREE, NO.121, 2^ND PHASE, 2^ND STAGE, WEST OF CHORD ROAD MAHALAKSHMIPURA BANGALORE-560 086.

¶10

&PETITIONER

¶11

Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY SRI. VIGHNESHWAR S. SHASTRI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT./KUM. AISHWARYA HEGDE M.V., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶15

GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY, HUDSON CIRCLE,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:18215 WP No. 10560 of 2026

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002 REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER.

¶20

BENGALURU WEST CITY CORPORATION, GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR OFFICE, IDEAL HOMES 18TH CROSS, RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR ZONE/WARD, BENGALURU-560 098 REPRESENTED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER.

¶21

&RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT. SPOORTHI V., HCGP FOR R.1;

¶23

SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R.2 AND R.3.)

¶24

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 04.03.2026 BEARING NO.JA.AA/RARANAVA/P.R/71/2025-26 AND NO.JA.AA /RARANAVA/C.O/71/2025-26 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 AS PER ANNEXURE-F, ETC.

¶25

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶27

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:18215 WP No. 10560 of 2026

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has not put up any construction in violation of the building bye-laws or sanctioned plan. However, without issuance of notice, the order under Sections 243(3)(e) and 244(1) of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024 has been passed directing the petitioner to remove certain construction put up by her. Hence, the present petition is filed with the following prayers:

¶32

"(i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari, order or direction, quashing the order dated 04.03.2026 bearing No.Ja.Aa/RaRaNaVa/P.R/71/2025-26 & No.Ja.Aa/RaRaNaVa/C.O/71/2025-26 passed by Respondent No.3 as per Annexure F.

¶33

(ii) Issue any other appropriate writ or order or direction which deems fit and necessary, in the present facts and circumstances of this case, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶34

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3, upon instructions, submits that the petitioner is having an alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 250 of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024. However, the petitioner prays that some protection may be granted to her until she files

¶35

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:18215 WP No. 10560 of 2026

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

an appeal. The petitioner fears precipitative action from

¶38

respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶39

Hence, the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

(i) The writ petition stands disposed of reserving the liberty to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority under Section 250 of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024;

¶42

(ii) Respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall not take any precipitative action against the petitioner for a period of six weeks from today or till an order is passed by the Appellate Authority, whichever is earlier.

¶43

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶44

hkh. List No.: 3 Sl No.: 2

Smt. Shylaja M v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shylaja M v. the State of Karnataka

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 Sai Sumukha Properties Vs the Chief Commissioner

Sri Rajashekar, Vs the Commissioner

Smt Shashikala Vs the Executive Officer (E.O)

Mr. Mahboob Sheriff Vs the Commissioner

Suresh Kumar, Vs Greater Bengaluru Authority

Sri S Manjunathaiah Vs the Regional Commissioner