Disposed¶36

Smt Siddalingamma v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC10 Apr 2026WP/25390/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Unauthorised construction; deviation from sanction plan; violation of building byelaws; writ of mandamus against BBMP / Greater Bengaluru Authority officials; direction to municipal authority to act on citizen's representation and complete enforcement action within 4 months; counsel for private respondent absent; Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; WP No. 25390 of 2025 (LB-BMP); M.I. Arun J.; decided 10 April 2026; disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 - Greater Bengaluru Authority to initiate appropriate action against the construction put up by respondent No.4 in accordance with law and take it to its logical end within 4 months from the date of the order. ¶36

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued directing respondent Nos.1 to 3 to consider the petitioner's representation alleging unauthorised construction by respondent No.4 in violation of building byelaws and the sanction plan, and take appropriate action as per law.

¶22

Court's answer

The Court placed on record the submission of learned counsel for Greater Bengaluru Authority, on instructions, that respondent Nos.1 to 3 inspected respondent No.4's property after the writ petition was filed, found deviations in the construction, and have initiated suitable action against respondent No.4 which will be taken to its logical end.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 - Greater Bengaluru Authority to initiate appropriate action against the construction being put up by respondent No.4 in accordance with law.

¶36

Key takeaways

The action directed against respondent No.4's construction shall be taken to its logical end within a period of 4 months from the date of the order.ratio¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by a 93-year-old neighbouring property owner alleging that respondent No.4 had put up construction in violation of building byelaws and the sanction plan; the petitioner's representation to respondent Nos.1 to 3 (Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike officials, referred to in the order as Greater Bengaluru Authority) went unacted upon. Counsel for respondent No.4 was absent. Counsel for the Authority stated on instructions that, subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, the property was inspected, deviations in the construction were found, and suitable action had been initiated against respondent No.4 which would be taken to its logical end. Placing that submission on record, the High Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to initiate appropriate action against respondent No.4's construction in accordance with law and to take it to its logical end within a period of 4 months from the date of the order.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:20003 WP No. 25390 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 25390 OF 2025 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. SIDDALINGAMMA W/O LATE VEERASANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 93 YEARS, NO.25/Y, 14TH MAIN, 58TH CROSS, 3RD BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 010.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. M.R. KRISHNAMURTHY, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 002.

¶14

THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, RAJAJINAGAR ZONE, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:20003 WP No. 25390 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

RAMAMANDIRA SUB DIVISION. NO.7, I FLOOR, M. VISHVESWARIAHA COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, RAJAJINAGARA, BENGALURU-560 010.

¶19

SMT V.ANITHA, D/O SRI VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, NO.24/Y, 14TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. K.V. BATHE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. N. MAHALINGA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R4 (ABSENT))

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 3 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER AS PER ANNEXURE-E,F,G AND K AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION AS PER LAW AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:20003 WP No. 25390 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

On the allegation that respondent No.4 has put up construction in violation of building byelaws and sanction plan, the petitioner complained to respondent Nos.1 to 3 - Greater Bengaluru Authority. As no action was taken, the present writ petition is filed with a prayer to direct respondent Nos.1 to 3 - Greater Bengaluru Authority to initiate appropriate action on the representation made by the petitioner.

¶29

Learned counsel for respondent No.4 is absent.

¶30

Learned counsel for Greater Bengaluru Authority, upon instruction, submits that subsequent to filing of the writ petition, respondent Nos.1 to 3 have inspected the property of respondent No.4 and have found that there are deviations in the construction being put up and suitable action has been initiated against respondent No.4 and the same will be taken to its logical end.

¶31

His submission is placed on record.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:20003 WP No. 25390 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

For the aforementioned reason, the writ petition

¶36

is disposed of with a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 - Greater Bengaluru Authority to initiate appropriate action against the construction being put up by respondent No.4 in accordance with law.

¶37

The same shall be taken to its logical end within a period of 4 months from today.

¶38

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶39

NS CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52

Smt Siddalingamma v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Siddalingamma 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

Prashanth N @ Prashanth Vs State of Karnataka

Sri N Shiva Shankar Vs State of Karnataka

Benaka Automations Private Limited Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri K Kanchappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Hema Shree Y, Vs the Commissioner

Nirupama Upadaya Vs Udupi City Municipality