Sri Vikram Kumar Solanki v. Greater Bengaluru Authority

Karnataka HC28 Apr 2026WP/13685/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sealing of building without notice; de-seal directions; demolition of construction deviating from sanctioned plan; Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020; Greater Bengaluru Authority (erstwhile BBMP); Bengaluru Central City Corporation, Gandhinagar Zone; arbitrary action vs procedure established by law; Articles 226 & 227 writ petition; Annexure-L; sealed on 24.04.2026; Chamrajpet Ward No. 140; Municipal No. 96; disposal with de-sealing relief.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to forthwith remove the seal of the building and permit the petitioner to construct in accordance with law; liberty reserved to initiate lawful proceedings for any deviations. ¶¶37

Sri Vikram Kumar Solanki Vs Greater Bengaluru… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Respondents directed to forthwith remove the seal of the building and permit the petitioner to construct in accordance with law; liberty reserved to initiate lawful proceedings for any deviations.

¶¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents acted unlawfully in sealing the petitioner's premises without issuing any notice, after having demolished the portion deviating from the sanctioned plan.

¶¶30

Court's answer

No person has a right to put up construction in violation of the sanctioned plan and building bye-laws; the authorities are duty bound to initiate appropriate action against such construction, but it must be done as per the procedure established by law and cannot be an arbitrary action as in the instant case.

¶¶36

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is disposed of; the respondents are directed to forthwith remove the seal of the building and permit the petitioner to construct the building in accordance with law.

¶¶37

Key takeaways

The respondents remain at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings against the petitioner in the manner known to law if there are any deviations in the construction.obiter¶¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WP No. 13685 of 2026 (LB-BMP), High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (Justice M.I. Arun, oral order dated 28.04.2026): After provisional and confirmation orders under the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 for deviations from the sanctioned plan, the respondents demolished the non-conforming portion of the petitioner's building; thereafter, without any notice, they entered and sealed the premises (sealed 24.04.2026, Annexure-L). The court held that although no one may construct in violation of the sanctioned plan and building bye-laws and the authorities are duty bound to act against such construction, the action must be taken as per the procedure established by law and cannot be arbitrary. The petition was disposed of with directions to forthwith remove the seal and permit construction in accordance with law, while expressly preserving the respondents' liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings for any deviations.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:23659 WP No. 13685 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.13685 OF 2026 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI VIKRAM KUMAR SOLANKI S/O MANOHAR LAL JAIN AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT 903, RANKA CHAMBERS 2ND FLOOR, M B T STREET NAGRATHPET MAIN ROAD BENGALURU NORTH - 560 002.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

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

¶11

(BY SRI. KEERTHI KRISHNA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS BBMP, CORPORATION CIRCLE, N R SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002 REP BY ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER.

¶14

BENGALURU CENTRAL CITY CORPORATION GANDHINAGARA ZONE ANNEXURE-3, BUILDING, GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY OFFICE PREMISES

¶15

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:23659 WP No. 13685 of 2026

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

N R SQUARE, HUDSON CIRCLE BENGALURU - 560 002 REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶18

JOINT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU CENTRAL CITY CORPORATION GANDHINAGARA ZONE ANNEXURE-3, BUILDING, GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY OFFICE PREMISES N R SQUARE, HUDSON CIRCLE BENGALURU - 560 002.

¶19

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CHAMARAJPET WARD OFFICE AT NANJAMBA AGRAHARA CHAMRAJPET, BENGALURU-560 018.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT RESPONDENT NOS.2, 3 AND 4 TO FORTHWITH DE-SEAL THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY/BUILDING SEALED ON 24.04.2026 VIDE ANNEXURE-L AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THEM TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM ANY UNLAWFUL INTERFERENCE WITH THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY BEARING MUNICIPAL NO.96 (OLD NOS. 95 AND 96), PID NO.46-4-96, MEASURING EAST TO WEST 60 FEET AND NORTH TO SOUTH 108 FEET, IN ALL MEASURING 6480 SQ. FT., SITUATED AT 2ND MAIN ROAD, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU, WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE ERSTWHILE BBMP, NOW BENGALURU CENTRAL CITY CORPORATION, WARD NO.140, BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER AND CO-OWNERS, EXCEPT IN ACCORDANCE WITH DUE PROCESS OF LAW, ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

NC: 2026:KHC:23659 WP No. 13685 of 2026

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

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

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

The case of the petitioner is that a provisional order and a confirmation order was passed under the provisions of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 (for short 'the Act') by the respondents against the building being constructed by the petitioner on the ground that there are certain deviations from the sanctioned plan.

¶30

Immediately, the petitioner facilitated removal of the deviations and the respondents demolished that portion of the property which was not in conformity with the sanctioned plan. Thereafter, the petitioner continued the construction in accordance with the sanctioned plan. However, without issuing any notice, the respondent authorities entered the premises of the petitioner and sealed the same, which is contrary to law.

¶31

Learned counsel for the respondents though justifies the action of the respondents, candidly admits that after demolition of the construction which was put up contrary to the sanctioned plan, the property of the petitioner has been sealed without any further notice.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:23659 WP No. 13685 of 2026

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

No person has a right to put up construction in violation

¶36

of the sanctioned plan and building bye-laws. If any person puts up construction in violation of the same, the authorities concerned are duty bound to initiate appropriate action to have the same removed. However, the same has to be done as per the procedure established by law and it cannot be an arbitrary action as in the instant case.

¶37

For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is disposed of . The respondents are directed to forthwith remove the seal of the building and permit the petitioner to construct the building in accordance with law.

¶38

It is needless to state that the respondents are at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings against the petitioner in the manner known to law if there are any deviations in the construction.

¶39

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶40

VMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

Sri Vikram Kumar Solanki v. Greater Bengaluru Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Vikram Kumar Solanki v. Greater Bengaluru Authority

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

R Sandeep Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

M/S Unique Services Minmetals Private Limited Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Kavya N K (Mouna N K) Vs the Assistant Director

P Narasimharaju Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Mahadevamma Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Vishalakshi. v Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike