Disposed

S R Pandurangappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Jan 2026WP/29668/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking mandamus for municipal action against residential construction alleged to be conversion for PG accommodation. The petition was disposed of by accepting the affidavit filed by respondent No. 5.

What did the court decide?

The petition stands disposed of by recording the terms of the affidavit filed by Respondent No. 5.

S R Pandurangappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:992 WP No. 29668 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 29668 OF 2025 (LB-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

S R PANDURANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS S/O S.K. RANGAPPA, R/AT NO.49, 3^RD MAIN ROAD, SONNAPPA LAYOUT, VIRUPAKSHAPURA, KODIGEHALLI, BENGALURU 560 097

¶11

HANUMANTA GOUDA PATIL, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, S/O CHANNABASANAGOUDA PATIL, R/AT NO.7, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, SONNAPPA LAYOUT, VIRUPAKSHAPURA, KODIGEHALLI, BENGALURU 560 097

¶12

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

S.R.BHAGWAT, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, S/O RAMAKRISHNA, R/AT NO.54, 3^RD MAIN ROAD, SONNAPPA LAYOUT, VIRUPAKSHAPURA, KODIGEHALLI, BENGALURU 560 097

¶14

CHANDRASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O A. GURUVA REDDY, R/AT NO.46, 3^RD MAIN ROAD, SONNAPPA LAYOUT, VIRUPAKSHAPURA, KODIGEHALLI, BENGALURU 560 097

¶15

G. GURUMURTHY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O THIMMAPPA, R/AT NO. 55, 3^RD MAIN ROAD, SONNAPPA LAYOUT, VIRUPAKSHAPURA, KODIGEHALLI, BENGALURU 560 097

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:992 WP No. 29668 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

HARSHITH BHAT AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O P BHEEMA BHAT R/AT NO.56, 3^RD MAIN ROAD, SONNAPPA LAYOUT, VIRUPAKSHAPURA, KODIGEHALLI, BENGALURU 560 097

¶19

K.N. PRADEEP KUMAR AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O K.T.NANJUNDA GOWDA, R/AT NO.47, 3RD MAIN ROAD, SONNAPPA LAYOUT, VIRUPAKSHAPURA, KODIGEHALLI, BENGALURU 560 097

¶20

K.S.UDAY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O K.T.SADANANDA, R/AT NO.26, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, SONNAPPA LAYOUT, VIRUPAKSHAPURA, KODIGEHALLI, BENGALURU 560 097

¶21

…PETITIONERS

¶22

(BY SRI. C M NAGABUSHANA.,ADVOCATE)

¶23

AND:

¶24

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶25

BENGALURU NORTH CITY CORPORATION, (FORMERLY YELAHANKA ZONE COMMISSIONER OFFICE) AMRUTHAHALLI MAIN ROAD, BELLARY ROAD, BENGALURU 560 092, REPTD BY ITS COMMISSIONER,

¶26

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, TOWN PLANNING, BENGALURU NORTH CITY CORPORATION, YELAHANKA ZONE, WARD NO.9 BENGALURU 560 068,

¶27

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TOWN PLANNING,

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:992 WP No. 29668 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

BENGALURU NORTH CITY CORPORATION, YELAHANKA ZONE, VIDYARANAPURA, BENGALURU 560097.

¶31

SMT. KALPANA RAGHURAMAN, MAJOR IN AGE, W/O RAGHURAMAN, R/AT NO.190, 6^TH A CROSS, AECS LAYOUT, 2^ND STAGE RMV EXTENSION, SANJAY NAGAR, BENGALURU 560 094

¶32

…RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY SMT. CHANDINI SINGH., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. PAWAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4; SRI. SRINIVAS R., ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶34

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS/DIRECTION OR ORDER OF SIMILAR NATURE, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER PETITIONERS REPRESENTATION DATED 24-03-2025 AND 02-04-2025 AT ANNEXURES - A AND B AND TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE GREATER BANGALORE GOVERNANCE ACT, 2024 OR THE BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE ACT 2020 AND ETC.

¶35

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

¶36

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶37

ORAL ORDER

¶38

The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs;

¶39

a. Issue a writ of mandamus/direction or order of similar nature, directing the respondents to consider petitioner’s representation dated 24.03.2025 and 02.04.2025 at Annexures-A & B and to take appropriate action against the respondents 2 to 4 as per the provisions of the Greater Bangalore

¶40

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:992 WP No. 29668 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Governance Act, 2024 or the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Act 2020.

¶44

b. To grant any other relief/s as deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case by the Hon’ble Court in the interest of justice and equity.

¶45

An affidavit of respondent No.5 dated 12.12.205 has

¶46

been filed, which reads as under;

¶47

AFFIDAVIT

¶48

I, Kalpana Raghuraman, W/o V. Raghuraman, aged about 53 years, residing at No.190, 6th 'A' Cross, AECS Layout, RMV Extension, Sanjaynagar, Bengaluru 560 094, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:

¶49

1. I am the Respondent No.5 in the above case and I know the facts of the case. Hence, I am swearing this affidavit.

¶50

2. I submit that I am carrying out construction on the sites bearing Nos. 25 and 48, having EPID No.6181800647, situated at Sonnappa Layout, Virupakshapura, Kodigehalli, Bengaluru - 560 097, in accordance with the building plan sanctioned by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), a true copy of which has been produced as Annexure-C to the writ petition.

¶51

3. I further submit that the building under construction is a purely residential building intended solely for rental purposes and the same is meant exclusively for residential use by tenants.

¶52

I, the deponent herein declare that this is my name and signature and the statements stated above are true and correct to the best my knowledge, belief and information.

¶53

¶54

NC: 2026:KHC:992 WP No. 29668 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

In pursuant thereto, learned counsel for the

¶57

petitioner has filed a memo dated 07.01.2026 which

¶58

reads as under;

¶59

MEMO

¶60

The Petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition contending that the respondent No.5 though has obtained a plan for residential purpose is putting up construction for PG Accommodation/ Private Lodging. The Respondent No.5 has filed an Affidavit before this Hon'ble Court on 12/12/2025 stating that the construction is purely residential building intending solely for rental purpose and the same is meant exclusively for residential use. In view of the same the grievance of the petitioner would no more survive.

¶61

WHEREFORE, the Petitioner pray that the above Writ Petition may be disposed of recording the terms of the affidavit filed by the Respondent No.5 in the interest of justice and equity.

¶62

Placing both the affidavit and memo on record, the

¶63

petition stands disposed of.

¶64

SD/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶65

SR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 65

S R Pandurangappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S R Pandurangappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.a.S.Ganesh Vs the Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Smt K R Manjula Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Janaki Billava Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri K K Aiyappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. P. Babulal Vs the Chief Commissioner

Sri Narayanappa Gowda Vs the Deputy Commissioner