Sri Mohammed Suhail Sait Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:21164 WP No. 12107 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 12107 OF 2026 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. MOHAMMED SUHAIL SAIT S/O MR. MOHAMMED FAIROZ SAIT AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.12 CK GARDEN, COOKE TOWN BENGALURU-560 084.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. P.K.NAVADGI, SR. ADVOCATE FOR

¶11

SMT. YUKTHA ANIL, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT REP. BY ITS SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD BANGALORE-560 001.

¶15

GREATER BANGALORE AUTHORITY REP. BY ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER HUDSON CIRCLE, N.R.SQUARE BANGALORE-560 002.

¶16

BANGALORE BRUHAT MAHANAGARA PALIKE REP. BY ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER HUDSON CIRCLE, N.R.SQUARE BANGALORE 560 002.

¶17

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:21164 WP No. 12107 of 2026

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE MARUTHI SEWA NAGAR SUB DIVISION R.S.PALYA, KAMMANAHALLI MAIN ROAD BANGALORE-560 043.

¶22

THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER EASTERN ZONE 10^TH FLOOR, PU BUILDING. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BENGALURU-560 002.

¶23

SRI. HERMOINE MATHIAS W/O JOSEPH HECTOR MATHIAS AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS R/AT NO.23, 3^RD CROSS CK GARDENS, ST. THOMAS TOWN BENGALURU-560 084.

¶24

[AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 16.04.2026] …RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SMT. SPOORTHI V., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. B.S.KARTHIKEYAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R5; SRI. P.MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R6 [ABSENT])

¶26

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER DATED 06.03.2026 IN APPEAL NO.55/2025 (ANNEXURE-A) ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 AND ETC.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:21164 WP No. 12107 of 2026

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

Proceedings have been initiated against the construction

¶34

put up by the petitioner by respondent nos.2 to 5, on the complaint lodged by respondent no.6. The case of the petitioner is that the provisional order and the confirmation order were not served on the petitioner and thereafter realising their mistake, the Zonal Commissioner of the then BBMP issued a notice dated 18.03.2025 to the petitioner, to provide necessary documents to the petitioner regarding illegal construction and that the petitioner went to the office of the said Zonal Commissioner on 04.04.2025. However, as the officers of the then BBMP threatened to demolish the building constructed by the petitioner, he preferred an appeal before respondent no.2 and the impugned order has been passed without application of mind upholding the provisional and confirmatory order. It is further submitted that notice dated 18.03.2025 has not been considered by respondent no.1 in the appeal.

¶35

Be that as it may, no person has a right to put up construction in violation of sanctioned plan and any

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:21164 WP No. 12107 of 2026

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

construction put up in violation of the sanctioned plan is required to be demolished by the authorities concerned.

¶40

At this juncture, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to

¶41

5 fairly submits that, a fresh inspection of the property of the petitioner will be conducted and appropriate action will be initiated against the petitioner after the said inspection in terms of the present applicable law. He also submits petitioner is also having the liberty to request for modified plan sanction in accordance with the prevailing law and the same would be considered.

¶42

The petitioner is agreeable for the same.

¶43

Learned counsel for caveator-respondent no.6 is absent.

¶44

Hence, the following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

(i) The concerned officer of Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA) shall inspect the premises of the petitioner on 15.05.2026 without further notice to the parties;

¶47

5 -

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:21164 WP No. 12107 of 2026

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

(ii) The petitioner and respondent no.6 are permitted to participate in the said inspection;

¶51

(iii) Thereafter respondent nos.2 to 5 shall proceed against the petitioner if any construction is put up in violation of the sanctioned plan;

¶52

(iv) Liberty is also reserved to the petitioner to seek modification of the sanctioned plan in accordance with law and if the said application were to be made, respondent no.2 to 5 will consider the same in accordance with law;

¶53

(v) Till a decision is taken by respondent nos.2 to 5 in this regard subsequent to the inspection to be conducted by virtue of this order, the earlier orders will not be given effect to;

¶54

(vi) The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶55

Pending I.A.s, if any, stand disposed of.

¶56

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶57

PGG

¶58

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

Sri Mohammed Suhail Sait v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Mohammed Suhail Sait 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

Sri. Siddalingaswamigalu Matadhipathi of Virupaksha Wodeyar Mutt Vs the Administrator

Smt Bhagyamma Vs the Executive Officer

Shri. Yogendra Raj Vs the Commissioner

Sri Jayaramu Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Lakshmamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Vincent D Souza Vs Deputy Commissioner