The Promont Residents Welfare Association Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

HAVING ADDRESS AT KHATHA NO.824/7/168, HOSAKEREHALLI VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK 560085 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. DRUVA KUMAR

¶16

MR. DHRUVA KUMAR, S/O MR. SANNAMARI GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO. ALTEZZA - T2 1902, THE PROMONT, 168, 3^RD MAIN ROAD, ITTAMADU, BANASHANKARI 3^RD STAGE, HOSAKEREHALLI, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560085

¶17

MS. BINDU M, D/O MR. MYLARAPPA T N, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO. ALTURA-T1-1002, THE

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:21993 WP No. 25889 of 2025 C/W WP No. 31163 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

PROMONT, 168, 3^RD MAIN ROAD, ITTAMADU, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, HOSAKEREHALLI, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560085.

¶22

MR. G M HEMANTH, S/O MR. G L MARKANDIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDING AT FLAT NO. ALTEZZA - T2 -1801, THE PROMONT, 168, 3RD MAIN ROAD, ITTAMADU, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, HOSAKEREHALLI, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560085.

¶23

MS. JAYANTHI D/O MR. R S SREEHARI, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO. T4 1202, THE PROMONT, 168, 3RD MAIN ROAD, ITTAMADU, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, HOSAKEREHALLI, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560085.

¶24

MRS. KOMALA KUMARI W/O SHASHIDARAYYA KOPPAD, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO. ALTEZZA - T2 -1002, THE PROMONT, 168, 3RD MAIN ROAD, ITTAMADU, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, HOSAKEREHALLI, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560085.

¶25

…PETITIONERS

¶26

(BY SRI.D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR

¶27

SRI.YASHODHAR HEGDE., ADVOCATE)

¶28

AND:

¶29

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE HAVING ITS OFFICE AT N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU 560 002

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:21993 WP No. 25889 of 2025 C/W WP No. 31163 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶33

THE JOINT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, HUDSON CIRCLE BENGALURU 560 002.

¶34

TATA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT E-BLOCK, VOLTAS PREMISES, TB KADAM MARG, CHINCHPOKLI, MUMBAI-400 033, REP BY ITS COMMON DIRECTORS

¶35

PROMONT HILLTOP PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT THE RESIDENCY, NO.133/1, GROUND FLOOR, RESIDENCY ROAD, BENGALURU -560025.

¶36

…RESPONDENTS

¶37

(BY SRI. MONESH KUMAR K B.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2;

¶38

SMT.MANEESHA KONGOVI, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4)

¶39

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT DIRECTING RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER AND DISPOSE OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16/07/2025 (ANNEXURE-A) MADE BY THE PETITIONER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND WITHIN A TIME FRAME STIPULATED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT CONSEQUENTLY, DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO NOT ACT UPON THE SANCTIONED PLAN BEARING NO. BBMP/ADD.DIR/JD/SOUTH/LP/73/2010-11 DATED 11/06/2024 (ANNEXURE-F).

¶40

4 -

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:21993 WP No. 25889 of 2025 C/W WP No. 31163 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

IN WP NO. 31163/2025

¶44

BETWEEN:

¶45

MR DHRUVA KUMAR S/O MR. SANNAMARI GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO. ALTEZZA - T2 - 1902, THE PROMONT, 168, 3RD MAIN ROAD, ITTAMADU, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, HOSAKEREHALLI, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA 560 085.

¶46

MS. BINDU M, D/O MR. MYLARAPPA T N, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO. ALTURA-T1-1002, THE PROMONT, 168, 3RD MAIN ROAD, ITTAMADU, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, HO-SAKEREHALLI, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA 560 085.

¶47

MR. G M HEMANTH, S/O MR. G L MARKANDIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO. ALTEZZA 1801, THE PROMONT, 168, 3RD MAIN ROAD, ITTAMADU, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, HOSAKEREHALLI, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA- 560 085.

¶48

MS. JAYANTHI D/O MR. R S SREEHARI, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO. T4 1202, THE PROMONT, 168, 3RD MAIN ROAD, ITTAMADU, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, HO-SAKEREHALLI, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA 560085

¶49

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:21993 WP No. 25889 of 2025 C/W WP No. 31163 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

MRS. KOMALA KUMARI W/O SHASHIDARAYYA KOPPAD, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO. ALTEZZA - T2 1002, THE PROMONT, 168, 3RD MAIN ROAD, ITTAMADU, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, HOSAKEREHALLI,

¶52

BENGALURU, KARNATAKA 560085.

¶53

THE PROMONT RESIDENTS' WELFARE ASSOCIATION, ERSTWHILE ASSOCIATION OF RESIDENTS OF THE PROMONT APARTMENT PHASE-1 HAVING ADDRESS AT KHATHA NO. 824/7/168, HOSAKEREHALLI VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK 560085 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. DRUVA KUMAR

¶54

...PETITIONERS

¶55

(BY SRI.D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR

¶56

SRI.YASHODHAR HEGDE.,ADVOCATE)

¶57

AND:

¶58

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE A CORPORATION, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU 560 002

¶59

REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶60

THE JOINT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, HUDSON CIRCLE BENGALURU 560 002.

¶61

THE DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY NO.49, KHANIJA BHAVAN, DEVARAJU ARASU ROAD, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE,

¶62

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:21993 WP No. 25889 of 2025 C/W WP No. 31163 of 2025

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

BENGALURU URBAN, KARNATAKA, 560 001 REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR.

¶65

TATA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956. HAVING ITS OFFICE AT E-BLOCK, VOLTAS PREMISES, TB KA-DAM MARG, CHINCHPOKLI, MUMBAI 400 033 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTORS

¶66

PROMONT HILLTOP PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956. HAVING ITS OFFICE AT THE RESIDENCY, NO.133/1, GROUND FLOOR, RESIDENCY ROAD, BENGALURU 560025, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTORS

¶67

...RESPONDENTS

¶68

(BY SRI. K.B.MONESH KUMAR,ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2,

¶69

SRI.BOPANNA BELLIAPPA, AGA FOR R3,

¶70

SMT.MANEESHA KONGOVI, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5)

¶71

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 02.09.2025 BEARING NO. JDTP(S)/LP/431/2025-26 ISSUED BY THE R2 (ANNX-A) AND ETC.,

¶72

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

¶73

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

¶74

7 -

¶75

NC: 2026:KHC:21993 WP No. 25889 of 2025 C/W WP No. 31163 of 2025

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

ORAL ORDER

¶78

The contesting respondent Nos.3 and 4 in W.P.No.25889/2025 and respondent Nos.4 and 5 in

¶79

W.P.No.31163/2025 have constructed an apartment in the

¶80

name and style of 'Promont Apartment' and it has khata bearing No.824/7/168, Hosakerehalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. The said apartments have been sold to various third parties and they have, in turn, formed an association in the name and style of "The Promont Residents Welfare Association". The petitioners are the said association and few purchasers/residents of the apartments. The contesting respondents have not constructed all the apartments for which they have taken permission from the Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA)/ Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) at once. They have constructed only Phase-1 and the petitioners have purchased the said apartments over there. In furtherance of the sanction already granted, the contesting respondents intend to develop Phase-2 and Phase-3 by constructing additional apartments. At this juncture, the present writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners, contending that the topography of the said apartments is

¶81

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:21993 WP No. 25889 of 2025 C/W WP No. 31163 of 2025

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

unique, in the sense that the same is standing on a monolithic rock and any further construction, though permitted by the BBMP/GBA, will put the already constructed building in jeopardy. On the said ground, they have made representation to the GBA/BBMP, requesting them to consider their apprehensions before granting any permission to the contesting respondents. However, the BBMP has granted permission to the contesting respondents. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petitions are filed.

¶84

In W.P.No.25889/2025, the following prayers are made:-

¶85

"a. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing Respondents to consider and dispose of the Representation dated 16/07/2025 (Annexure-A) made by the Petitioner in accordance with law and within a time frame stipulated by this Hon'ble Court; Consequently, direct the Respondents to not act upon the sanctioned Plan bearing No.BBMP/Add.Dir/JD/South/LP/73/2010-11 dated 11/06/2024 (Annexure-F).

¶86

b. Pass any other relief or order or directions that this Hon'ble Court deems fit, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶87

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:21993 WP No. 25889 of 2025 C/W WP No. 31163 of 2025

¶88

HC-KAR

¶89

In W.P.No.31163/2025, the following prayers are made:-

¶90

" A. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned notice dated 02.09.2025 bearing No.JDTP(S)/LP/431/2025-26 issued by the Respondent No.2. (Annexure-A) ;

¶91

B. Pass any other order or direction that this Hon'ble Court deems fit, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶92

Admittedly, taking into consideration the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) available to the contesting respondents, they are entitled to put up the construction as permitted by the BBMP/GBA. Under the circumstances, the only question that arises for consideration is whether putting up additional construction, as permitted, would endanger the construction already made by the contesting respondents?

¶93

This Court does not have the necessary technical competence to decide on the said issue. It is best decided by the competent authorities.

¶94

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:21993 WP No. 25889 of 2025 C/W WP No. 31163 of 2025

¶95

HC-KAR

¶96

The case of the contesting respondents is that they have obtained four reports from the competent persons and they have submitted the same to the BBMP and based on the said reports, the BBMP has taken a decision to grant permission to go ahead with the additional construction.

¶97

Learned counsel appearing for the BBMP/GBA, upon instructions, submits that, it does not have the competent Officers to address the issue on hand. Hence, under these circumstances, they normally ask the developer/builder to furnish a certificate to that effect from a competent person and in the instant case also, they have requested the contesting respondents to provide a report to that effect and the contesting respondents have produced reports from two independent persons stating that it is safe to put up the additional construction as sought by the contesting respondents.

¶98

The petitioners contend that the said reports are doctored for the benefit of the contesting respondents and vehemently oppose the same. It is submitted that the petitioners would be satisfied if the BBMP / GBA were to get a report from a neutral

¶99

11 -

¶100

NC: 2026:KHC:21993 WP No. 25889 of 2025 C/W WP No. 31163 of 2025

¶101

HC-KAR

¶102

person and more particularly, from the National Institute of Rock Mechanics.

¶103

Learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents submits that the said report is not required. It is submitted that they are also equally concerned about the safety of the construction put up by them and are aware that, if any casualty happens, they would be sued by the persons who have purchased the already sold apartments. It is also submitted that the writ petitions are filed on frivolous grounds, as the petitioners are interested to prevent the contesting respondents from completing the project as envisaged, so that the petitioners can enjoy the entire property on which the apartments are standing for themselves.

¶104

Learned counsel appearing for the BBMP / GBA submits that if the petitioners are willing to bear the cost, they would obtain the necessary test to be conducted by a neutral third party, who is competent to examine and submit a report and thereafter, take a decision.

¶105

His submission is placed on record.

¶106

12 - NC: 2026:KHC:21993 WP No. 25889 of 2025 C/W WP No. 31163 of 2025

¶107

HC-KAR

¶108

For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petitions are

¶109

disposed of with a direction to BBMP/GBA to have the site examined by a competent neutral third party and thereafter, to determine the feasibility of putting up additional construction by the contesting respondents. The said exercise shall be done at the cost of the petitioners. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶110

The impugned permissions / sanctions / licences granted in favour of the contesting respondents shall be kept in abeyance till such a decision is taken by the BBMP /GBA.

¶111

If the petitioners and the contesting respondents have any other grievance against each other, they are at liberty to address the same before the appropriate forum in accordance

¶112

with law.

¶113

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶114

VMB

¶115

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40

The Promont Residents Welfare Association v. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Promont Residents Welfare Association v. 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

Sri Jayaramu Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Lakshmamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Vincent D Souza Vs Deputy Commissioner

A R Ashok Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Suresh Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. M N Yeshodamma Vs the State of Karnataka