Allowed¶49

Mr. B K Bhuvanesh v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC18 Jun 2026WP/17807/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of notice under Sections 311 and 312, Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024; production of sanctioned plan; no construction except temporary shed; Bengaluru East City Corporation / Greater Bengaluru Authority; Articles 226-227 writ allowed; liberty to authorities to act in accordance with law; O.S. No.3371/2026 ex parte injunction; Justice B M Shyam Prasad; WP No. 17807 of 2026.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; the impugned Notice dated 09.06.2026 (Annexure-A) is quashed, in light of the Court's observations reserving liberty to the authorities. ¶49

Mr. B K Bhuvanesh Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:29892 WP No. 17807 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JUNE 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 17807 OF 2026 (LB-BMP)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MR. B K BHUVANESH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O A. KRISHNAMURTHY, RESIDENT OF 1^ST CROSS, NANJAPPA GARDEN, OPP GOVT. FAIR PRICE DEPOT, BABUSAPALYA, BENGALURU-560043.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. S Z A KHURESHI., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N

¶15

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER BENGALURU EAST CITY CORPORATION, GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY, R.H.B. COLONY, WHITE FIELD MAIN ROAD, MAHADEVAPURA, BENGALURU - 560048.

¶17

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BENGALURU EAST CITY CORPORATION,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:29892 WP No. 17807 of 2026

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

HORAMAVU SUB-DIVISION, (UPPA VIBHAGA), GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY, BEHIND HORAMAVU POST OFFICE, JAYANTI NAGAR MAIN RD, ASHIRVAD COLONY, BENGALURU-560 113.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI.PAWAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (A) QUASH THE NOTICE BEARING NO.GBA/CKA/H.U.V/P.R/W-04/2026-27 DATED

¶25

09.06.2026 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER. HORAMAVU SUB-DIVISION. BENGALURU EAST CITY CORPORATION, GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY, AT ANNEXURE A.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

The petitioner asserts ownership of an immovable property bearing Nos. 14 and 15, KEB office Road, Doddaiah Layout, Nanjappa Garden, Babusapalya, Bengaluru [the Subject Property]. The petitioner has instituted a suit against third parties in O.S. No.3371/2026 on the file of the Principal City

¶30

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:29892 WP No. 17807 of 2026

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. The civil Court has granted ex parte injunction on 02.05.2026 restraining these third parties from interfering with the petitioner's peaceful possession.

¶34

Sri S Z A Khureshi, the learned counsel

¶35

for the petitioner, relying upon the photographs of the subject property, submits that [a] the petitioner's property is vacant except for a temporary shed, [b] the petitioner is not undertaking any further construction, [c] notwithstanding the afore, the impugned Notice dated 09.06.2026 [Annexure-A] is issued under Sections 311 and 312 of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024 [for short, ‘the GBG Act’ ], calling upon the petitioner to produce copies of the sanctioned plan, and [d] this is possibly at the instance of those against whom the petitioner has an interim Order.

¶36

Sri S. Z A Khureshi submits that there is

¶37

no cause to invoke the jurisdiction under Sections

¶38

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:29892 WP No. 17807 of 2026

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

311 and 312 of the GBG Act because the petitioner

¶42

has not commenced any construction and the construction as it exists is only a temporary shed. Sri

¶43

Pawan Kumar, a learned standing counsel for the respondent who is called upon to accept notice for the respondent, is heard in the light of these circumstances.

¶44

This Court, upon perusal of the records [ including the photographs produced as per Annexure – E ], must find that this submission merits acceptance justifying interference by this Court to quash the impugned Endorsement, but this Court must hasten to add that if indeed the petitioner undertakes any construction, it should be open to the Authorities to act in accordance with law. This liberty shall also be if the Authorities have any interest in the subject property for vindication thereof. Hence the following.

¶45

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:29892 WP No. 17807 of 2026

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

ORDER

¶49

The petition is allowed quashing the impugned Notice dated 09.06.2026 [Annexure-A] in light of the observations

¶50

as aforesaid.

¶51