Disposed¶33

Smt Renukamma v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC3 Jul 2026WP/16537/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Greater Bengaluru Authority; unauthorised construction; construction without sanctioned plan; bye-law violation; 'B' Khata property; compound wall on eastern side; mahazar and photograph; Inspection Report; initiation of proceedings under relevant statute; disposal of writ petition; notice to R3 & R4 deferred 08.06.2026; LB-BMP; Bengaluru (Jnanaganganagar); Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Neutral citation: NC: 2026:KHC:33388.

What did the court decide?

No substantive directions granted; the petition was disposed of in view of the Greater Bengaluru Authority's submission that the inspection report has been filed with the concerned authority for initiation of proceedings under the relevant statute. ¶33

Smt Renukamma Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the Greater Bengaluru Authority (Respondents 1 and 2) should consider the petitioner's representation at Annexure-H dated 2.3.2026 relating to the construction/compound wall affecting the eastern side of the petitioner's property. +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

In light of the Standing Counsel's submissions — that the construction is without a plan and contrary to bye-law parameters, that no plan could have been granted because the property only has a 'B' Khata, and that the report has been filed with the concerned authority for initiation of proceedings under the relevant statute — the petition stands disposed of, without the directions sought being issued.

¶33

Key takeaways

In furtherance of this Court's previous order dated 08.06.2026, the learned Standing Counsel for the Greater Bengaluru Authority and its officers was permitted to place on record the mahazar and photograph.obiter¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 16537 of 2026 (LB-BMP), High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (Hon'ble Mr. Justice B M Shyam Prasad; order dated 03.07.2026): The petitioner (Smt Renukamma) sought directions to the Greater Bengaluru Authority (Respondents 1 and 2) to consider her representation dated 02.03.2026 (Annexure-H) and to remove the compound wall on the eastern side of her property at Jnanaganganagar, Bangalore. Pursuant to the Court's earlier order dated 08.06.2026 — by which notice to Respondents 3 and 4 was deferred and the Authority's Standing Counsel was permitted to place on record the mahazar and photograph — the Standing Counsel reported that the Inspection Record showed the construction to be without a plan and contrary to bye-law parameters, that no plan could have been granted because the property only has a 'B' Khata, and that the report had been filed with the concerned authority for initiation of proceedings under the relevant statute. On these submissions, the Court disposed of the petition without passing the directions sought.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:33388 WP No. 16537 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 16537 OF 2026 (LB-BMP)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT RENUKAMMA W/O NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, SY.NO.6/A, 2ND MAIN ROAD, 3RD CROSS, JNANAGANGANAGAR, BANGALORE -560056

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. JAGADEESHACHARI., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY, N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE-560002.

¶15

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE 560056

¶16

SMT.KAMALAMMA W/O BETTASWAMY,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:33388 WP No. 16537 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

AGED 52 YEARS, R/A NO.7, 2ND MAIN ROAD, 3RD CROSS, JNANAGANGANAGAR, BANGALORE-560056.

¶21

SRI. BETTASWAMY, R/A NO.7, 2ND MAIN ROAD, 3RD CROSS, JNANAGANGANAGAR, BANGALORE-560056.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. SINCHANA MR., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2;

¶24

V/O DTD 08.06.2026, NOTICE TO R3 & R4 IS DEFERRED)

¶25

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE DIRECTIONS TO THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 TO CONSIDER ANNEXURE-H DATED 2.3.2026 AND DIRECTIONS TO THE RESPONDENTS TO REMOVE THE COMPOUND WALL ON THE PETITIONER'S COMPOUND WALL ON THE EASTERN SIDE OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY.

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS,

¶27

THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:33388 WP No. 16537 of 2026

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

On perusal of this Court's previous order dated 08.06.2026, Ms. Sinchana M R, the learned Standing counsel for the Greater Bengaluru Authority and its officers, is permitted to place on record mahazar and photograph. The Inspection Report is that the construction is without a plan and contrary to the bye-law parameters. Ms. Sinchana M R submits that no plan could have been granted because the property only has a 'B' Khata and that the report has been filed with the concerned for initiation of proceedings under the relevant statute.

¶33

In the light of the afore, the petition stands disposed of.

¶34

SD/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶35

Smt Renukamma v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Renukamma v. the Commissioner

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

Mr. Ramesh S N Vs the Commissioner

H S Umesh Vs Assistant Executive Engineer

The Precious Blood Missionaries Vs the Commissioner

Smt Munirathnamma Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Hemavathi S Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. V.N. Chethan Vs the State of Karnataka