Smt. Jayanthi. K v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC3 Jun 2026WP/2930/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 248 BBMP Act 2020 demolition and sealing proceedings; unauthorized illegal construction Bengaluru; writ of mandamus to BBMP Commissioner and Assistant Executive Engineer; reliefs infructuous as action already taken; respondent No.4 appeal under Section 253 BBMP Act before Chief Commissioner; liberty to petitioner to participate in appellate proceedings; enforcement of order dated 07.08.2025 in WP No. 34655/2024; disposed; Suraj Govindaraj J.; Karnataka High Court LB-BMP.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to the petitioner to participate in the appellate proceedings before the Chief Commissioner; the substantive reliefs sought (completion of Section 248 BBMP Act proceedings including coercive action) were not granted, being rendered infructuous by action already taken. ¶¶42

Smt. Jayanthi. K Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether respondents 1 and 2 ought to be directed by writ of mandamus to take the proceedings initiated under Section 248 of the BBMP Act to their logical end and to initiate and complete coercive action, including sealing and demolition of the alleged unauthorized and illegal construction put up by respondent Nos. 3 to 6 in the Schedule Property.

¶¶34

Court's answer

Since action has already been taken by the respondents during the pendency of the petition, the reliefs sought by the petitioner have become infructuous.

¶¶41

Ratio / Principle

The petition stands disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioner to participate in the appellate proceedings pending before the Chief Commissioner (respondent No.4's appeal under Section 253 BBMP Act).

¶¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Karnataka HC, Bengaluru) under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India by Smt. Jayanthi K. seeking a mandamus directing the BBMP Commissioner and the Assistant Executive Engineer (Respondent Nos. 1 and 2) to take proceedings initiated under Section 248 of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 to their logical end, in terms of the order dated 07.08.2025 in WP No. 34655/2024, and to complete coercive action including sealing and demolition of the alleged unauthorized construction by respondent Nos. 3 to 6. During pendency, notices under Sections 248(1) and 248(2) and a confirmatory order under Section 248(3) were issued, and respondent No.4 challenged the confirmatory order before the Chief Commissioner under Section 253 BBMP Act. HELD: action having already been taken by the respondents, the reliefs sought stood infructuous; the petition was disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to participate in the appellate proceedings before the Chief Commissioner (Suraj Govindaraj J.).

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:26524 WP No. 2930 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 2930 OF 2026 (LB-BMP)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. JAYANTHI. K AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS D/O LATE KRISHNA REDDY RESIDING AT AVR NAKSHATRA VILLA NO. 45, AECS LAYOUT, CHINNAPPANAHALLI BENGALURU-560037

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. SIDDHARTH SUMAN.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA N. R. SQUARE, BENGALURU 560 002.

¶15

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PATIKE, HUDI DIVISION, MAHADEVAPURA, BENGALURU 560 048.

¶17

SMT. P. NAGAVENI MAJOR IN AGE, ACTUAL AGE NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, W/O LATE N. K. VASUDEV REDDY NO.3

¶18

SRI. N. V. PURUSHOTAM MAJOR IN AGE, ACTUAL AGE NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, S/O LATE N. K. VASUDEV REDDY

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:26524 WP No. 2930 of 2026

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

SRI. N. V. BHASKER REDDY MAJOR IN AGE ACTUAL AGE NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, S/O LATE N. K. VASUDEV REDDY RESPONDENT NOS 3 TO 5 ARE ALL R/AT NO. 105, OUTER RING ROAD, FERNS HABITAT, DODDANEKUNDI, BENGALURU-560 037

¶23

SMT. N. V. KAVITHA MAJOR IN AGE, ACTUAL AGE NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, D/O LATE N. K. VASUDEV REDDY R/AT NO. 1397, 12TH CROSS, 21ST MAIN, 1ST SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 102

¶24

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.S. KARTHIKEYAN., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI. P.B. AJIT., ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5; SRI. R. ANIL KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R6)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION DIRECTING RESPONDENT NOS. 1 AND 2 TO FORTHWITH TAKE THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 248 OF THE BBMP ACT TO THEIR LOGICAL END, IN TERMS OF THE ORDER DATED 07.08.2025 PASSED IN WP NO. 34655/2024, i.e., ANNEXUR-A AND TO INITIATE AND COMPLETE COERCIVE ACTION INCLUDING SEALING AND DEMOLITION OF THE UNAUTHORIZED AND ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION PUT UP BY RESPONDENT NOS. 3 TO 6 IN THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY, STRICTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ETC.

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶28

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:26524 WP No. 2930 of 2026

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the

¶33

following reliefs;

¶34

a) a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to forthwith take the proceedings initiated under Section 248 of the BBMP Act to their logical end, in terms of the order dated 07.08.2025 passed in W.P. No. i.e. Annexure. A 34655/2024, and to initiate and complete coercive action including sealing and demolition of the unauthorized and illegal construction put up by Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 in the Schedule Property, strictly in accordance with law;

¶35

b) Grant costs;

¶36

c) Grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and equity.

¶37

During the pendency of the above matter, notice had been issued under Sub-Section (1) of Section 248 and Sub-Section (2) of Section 248 of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 (‘BBMP Act’ for short) followed by a confirmatory order under Sub-Section (3) of Section 248 of the BBMP Act, which is now challenged by respondent No.4 before the Chief Commissioner under Section 253 of BBMP Act.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:26524 WP No. 2930 of 2026

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Those being the facts, action has already been taken by the respondents rendering the reliefs which have been sought for by the petitioner infructuous.

¶42

Reserving liberty to the petitioner to participate in the appellate proceedings before the Chief Commissioner, the petition stands disposed .

¶43

SD/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶44

KTY

¶45

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 10

Smt. Jayanthi. K v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Jayanthi. K 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Avg Logistics Limited Vs South Western Railway

Smt. Sushila Nanjappa Vs the Deputy Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

M/S Minerva Academy Football Club Sports Authority of India Vs Deputy Director

M/S Dreams of Fountains Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Karnantaka

M/S Yogesh Digital Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Anil R Vs the State of Karnataka