Sri Srinivas Reddy B M Vs the Commissioner

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:21840 WP No. 16953 of 2024

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 16953 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI SRINIVAS REDDY B M S/O LATE SRI MUNIREDDY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT NO 103/A, 3^RD CROSS 8^TH MAIN CHAKKASANDRA BLOCK, KORMANGALA, BANGALORE SOUTH, BANGALORE 560034

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. ONKARA K B., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE HEAD OFFICE, N R SQUARE, BENGALURU 560002.

¶14

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER MAHADEVAPURA ZONE, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE JOINT COMMISSIONER OFFICE, OPP. PHOENIX MALL RHB COLONY BENGALURU 560048.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE MARATHAHALLI SUB DIVISION, HEAD OFFICE, N R SQUARE,

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:21840 WP No. 16953 of 2024

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

BENGALURU 560002.

¶20

LUPIN VENTURES PVT. LTD. A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: NO.5, 3^RD FLOOR, C WING LAXMI TOWERS, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (EAST) MUMBAI - 400 051 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. NILESH SHYAMSUNDER AGARWAL SENIOR MANAGER FINANCE & ACCOUNTS.

¶21

(AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 04.02.2026.)

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. MULLUR SHANTA BALAPPA,ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. PRADEEP NAYAK, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT IN APPEAL NO.154/2023 AT ANNEXURE -A ON 18-05-2024 IN SO FAR AS UPHOLDING THE CONFIRMATION ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT VIDE NO.SA.KA.NE.Aa/Ma.Maa.Oo./Sc.00/03/23-24 UNDER SEC 248 (3) OF BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE ACT, 2020 DATED 03-07-2023 AS PER ANNEXURE-G

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

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

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:21840 WP No. 16953 of 2024

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

The petitioner has challenged the action of the BBMP / GBA in initiating proceedings against the construction put up by him on the property. The case of the petitioner is that the same is put up in accordance with law. However, the petitioner's appeal against confirmatory order filed before the Chief Commissioner have been erroneously rejected. This Court on 04.02.2026 has passed the following order:-

¶32

"1. Sri Mullur Shanta Balappa, learned counsel has entered appearance for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Hence, Registry is directed to delete the name of Sri. Pawan Kumar, learned counsel as that appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶33

2. I.A.No.1/2024 has been filed by the complainant. Being of the considered opinion that the complainant would have to be heard in the matter, I.A.No.1/2024 is allowed. The complainant is brought on record as Respondent No.4.

¶34

3. The contention is that the petitioner has put up construction without a plan sanction and therefore, the entire construction is in violation of the building bye-laws.

¶35

4. In that view of the matter Respondent No.3– Jurisdictional Assistant Executive Engineer along with the Jurisdictional Assistant Director of Town Planning, are

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:21840 WP No. 16953 of 2024

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

directed to conduct a joint inspection of the property of the petitioner as also the complainant i.e. the impleading applicant-respondent No.4.

¶40

5. For the purpose of ascertaining:

¶41

5.1. Whether the construction conforms to the applicable building bye-laws, zoning regulations, and land-use prescriptions under the Master Plan.

¶42

6. The inspection shall include physical measurement, verification of setbacks, floor area ratio, coverage, height, land-use conformity, and compliance with zoning regulations.

¶43

7. Respondent No.3 shall prepare a speaking inspection report, identifying each violation separately, with specific reference to the provisions of the KTCP Act, the municipal law in force, the sanctioned plan (if any), and the applicable building bye-laws.

¶44

8. Since the order is passed in the presence of all the counsel, the inspection shall be conducted commencing from 10:30 a.m. on 09.02.2026 .

¶45

9. The inspection report, along with supporting measurements, sketches, photographs, and copies of relevant records, shall be filed before this Court on or before 19.02.2026. 10. In the event of any apprehension of breach of peace or obstruction during the inspection, survey, or measurement, upon a requisition made by Respondent No.3, the jurisdictional police authorities shall extend

¶46

5 -

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:21840 WP No. 16953 of 2024

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

necessary police protection, to ensure due implementation of these directions.

¶50

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is willing to file an application for sanction of plan in terms of the applicable building bye-laws and that he would bring the construction in accordance with the applicable building bye- laws.

¶51

12. The petitioner is at liberty to file such an application which shall be filed on or before 23.02.2026. If such an application is filed with the respondent - ADTP of the BBMP, the said ADTP is directed to consider the same and pass necessary orders by considering the applicable building bylaws.

¶52

13. The respondent No.3 and the ADTP shall carry out an inspection on the property of the petitioner, demarcate the excess construction if any, vis-à-vis the building by-laws, that the petitioner would be required to remove and bring it in consonance with the applicable building bylaws within a period of 90 days thereafter. In the event of the excess construction being removed, the respondents are directed to assess the property for tax and issue necessary assessment orders. In the event of the petitioner not filing an application for plan sanction and thereafter not removing the excess construction, the benefits under this order would stand automatically rescinded.

¶53

14. Re-list on 25.02.2026 .

¶54

6 -

¶55

NC: 2026:KHC:21840 WP No. 16953 of 2024

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

15. Interim order granted earlier is extended till the next date of hearing."

¶58

On 25.02.2026, the following order is passed:-

¶59

"1. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that the property of the petitioner had been inspected. He seeks for a week's time to file the report.

¶60

2. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that the property of respondent No.4 has not been inspected.

¶61

3. Respondent No.3–Jurisdictional Assistant Executive Engineer, along with Jurisdictional Assistant Director of Town Planning, are directed to conduct a joint inspection of the property of the respondent No.4.

¶62

4. For the purpose of ascertaining:

¶63

4.1. Whether any construction or development activity is carried out or is being carried out on the said properties;

¶64

4.2. Whether such construction or development is supported by a valid building plan sanction issued by the competent authority under the applicable municipal and planning laws;

¶65

4.3. Whether the construction, if sanctioned, is carried out or being carried out strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plan, zoning regulations, and development control norms; and

¶66

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:21840 WP No. 16953 of 2024

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

4.4. Where no sanctioned plan exists, whether the construction conforms to the applicable building bye-laws, zoning regulations, and land-use prescriptions under the Master Plan.

¶69

5. The inspection shall include physical measurement, verification of setbacks, floor area ratio, coverage, height, land-use conformity, and compliance with zoning regulations.

¶70

6. Respondent No.3 shall prepare a speaking inspection report, identifying each violation separately, with specific reference to the provisions of the KTCP Act, the municipal law in force, the sanctioned plan (if any), and the applicable building bye-laws.

¶71

7. In the event any the construction being found to

¶72

be:

¶73

7.1. without a valid plan sanction; or 7.2. contrary to the sanctioned plan; or

¶74

7.3. in violation of zoning regulations or building byelaws,

¶75

8. Respondent No.3 shall, forthwith, ensure stoppage of all further construction activity on the said property, including by issuance of appropriate stopwork notices and initiation of statutory proceedings in accordance with law.

¶76

8 -

¶77

NC: 2026:KHC:21840 WP No. 16953 of 2024

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

9. The inspection shall be conducted commencing from 10:30 a.m. on 05.03.2026, after issuance of prior notice to Respondent No.4, in compliance with the principles of natural justice, and such notice shall be duly acknowledged prior to the date of inspection.

¶80

10. The inspection report, along with supporting measurements, sketches, photographs, and copies of relevant records, shall be filed before this Court on or before 18.03.2026.

¶81

11. In the event of any apprehension of breach of peace or obstruction during the inspection, survey, or measurement, upon a requisition made by Respondent No.3, the jurisdictional police authorities shall extend necessary police protection, in exercise of their powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to ensure due implementation of these directions.

¶82

12. Re-list on 18.03.2026.

¶83

13. Interim order earlier granted is extended till the next date of hearing."

¶84

3. Today, the learned counsel appearing for the BBMP / GBA

¶85

has filed an inspection report. The same is taken on record.

¶86

9 -

¶87

NC: 2026:KHC:21840 WP No. 16953 of 2024

¶88

HC-KAR

¶89

It is submitted that the petitioner has put up construction

¶90

in violation of the building bye-laws and without obtaining any sanctioned plan.

¶91

The petitioner is not in a position to contravene the submission made by the respondents.

¶92

For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is hereby dismissed . However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to seek conversion of the land from 'B' khata to 'A' khata and also for grant of fresh sanctioned plan in accordance with law. If such applications are filed, the respondents shall consider the same in accordance with law.

¶93

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed

¶94

of.

¶95

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶96

VMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

Sri Srinivas Reddy B M v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Srinivas Reddy B M 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

Sarojamma Vs Managing Director

K Shankarappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr.Shakib Ur Rahaman Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Narayanaswamy v Vs the Principal Secretary

Venkataramanaswamy @ Venkataramana Vs State by Karnataka

Smt Gangalakshmamma Vs Sri T Nagappaiah Navada