Disposed¶39

Smt. Vishalakshi. v. Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Karnataka HC28 Apr 2026WP/24453/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WP No. 24453 of 2024 (LB-BMP), High Court of Karnataka, M.I. Arun J., BBMP unauthorised construction, deviation from sanctioned plan, partial building demolition order dated 27.07.2023, Appeal No.91/2023 order dated 01.06.2024, Chief Commissioner BBMP, Assistant Director of Town Planning Yelahanka Zone, building bye-laws, modified sanction plan, regularisation of building deviations, certiorari under Article 226, impugned orders kept in abeyance, writ petition disposed of with directions.

What did the court decide?

Four weeks' time to apply for a modified sanction plan; such application to be considered in accordance with law; impugned orders to remain in abeyance until a decision is taken on the modified sanction plan request. ¶39

Smt. Vishalakshi. v Vs Bruhat Bengaluru… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 01.06.2024 passed by respondent no.2 in Appeal No.91/2023 (Annexure-A) and the partial building demolition order dated 27.07.2023 passed by respondent no.3 (Annexure-B) ought to be quashed. +1 more

¶30

Court's answer

No person has a right to put up construction in violation of building bye-laws and the sanctioned plan.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

The petitioners were granted four weeks from the date of the order to apply for a modified sanction plan.

¶36

Key takeaways

If an application for a modified sanction plan is made, it shall be considered in accordance with law and appropriate orders shall be passed by the respondents.ratio¶37
Upon such an application being made, the respondents shall keep the impugned orders in abeyance until a decision is taken on the request for a modified sanction plan, and thereafter suitable action will be initiated.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (M.I. Arun, J.) disposed of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in which the petitioners challenged (i) the order dated 01.06.2024 passed by respondent no.2 (Chief Commissioner, BBMP) in Appeal No.91/2023 (Annexure-A) and (ii) the partial building demolition order dated 27.07.2023 passed by respondent no.3, Assistant Director of Town Planning, Yelahanka Zone (Annexure-B). Counsel for the petitioners candidly admitted that the construction violated the sanctioned plan, but sought leave to apply for a modified sanction plan under the present building bye-laws and to voluntarily remove deviations which cannot be regularized. The Court held that no person has a right to put up construction in violation of building bye-laws and the sanctioned plan, and disposed of the petition with directions: (i) four weeks' time to apply for a modified sanction plan; (ii) such application to be considered in accordance with law; and (iii) the impugned orders to be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the modified sanction plan request, whereafter suitable action will be initiated.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:23631 WP No. 24453 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 24453 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. VISHALAKSHI V. W/O LATE N.SANTOSH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT NO.07, 4^TH MAIN DESHABANDHU NAGAR KRISHNA TEMPLE ROAD DODDA BOMMASANDRA BANGALORE NORTH (T) VIDYARANYAPURA BENGALURU-560 097.

¶10

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

¶11

SMT. PRIYANKA CHETHAK W/O CHETHAK AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT NO.285, 2^ND CROSS C.T.BED ROAD, THYAGARAJANAGAR BANASHANKARI II STAGE BENGALURU SOUTH-560 070.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. V.B.SHIVA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE CORPORATION OFFICES, N.R. SQUARE

¶16

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:23631 WP No. 24453 of 2024

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

J.C. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 002. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶20

THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE CORPORATION OFFICES, N.R. SQUARE J.C. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 002.

¶21

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING, YELAHANKA ZONE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE AMRUTHAHALLI MAIN ROAD BYATARAYANAPURA, BENGALURU-560 092.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. KARTHIKEYAN B.S., ADVOCATE)

¶24

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER, QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 IN APPEAL NO.91/2023 DATED 01.06.2024 IN TERMS OF ANNEXURE-'A' AND ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:23631 WP No. 24453 of 2024

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

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

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

1. The petitioners are challenging the impugned order dated 01.06.2024 passed in Appeal No.91/2023 by respondent no.2 (vide Annexure-A to the writ petition) and the subsequent partial building demolition order dated 27.07.2023 (vide Annexure-B to the writ petition) passed by respondent no.3.

¶31

2. In the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners candidly admits that petitioners have put up construction in violation of the sanctioned plan and hence, they have suffered the aforementioned orders. However they submit that, under the present building bye-laws majority of the construction put up can still be saved and they intend to make an application for modification of the sanctioned plan and thereafter they themselves would voluntarily remove such deviations, which cannot be regularized.

¶32

3. No person has a right to put up construction in violation of building bye-laws and the sanctioned plan. Hence, the following:

¶33

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:23631 WP No. 24453 of 2024

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

ORDER

¶36

(i) The petitioners are granted four weeks time from today to apply for modified sanction plan;

¶37

(ii) If such an application is made, the same shall be considered in accordance with law and appropriate orders shall be passed by the respondents;

¶38

(iii) If such an application is made, then in that event respondents shall keep the impugned orders in abeyance until a decision is taken by the respondent authorities on the request of the petitioners for modified sanction plan and thereafter suitable action will be initiated;

¶39

(iv) The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶40

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶41

PGG

¶42

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45

Smt. Vishalakshi. v. Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Vishalakshi. v. Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

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

Sri Vikram Kumar Solanki Vs Greater Bengaluru Authority