Manasa Chandra Mayanna Sanabaghatta Vs Smt Nanda… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Manasa Chandra Mayanna Sanabaghatta Vs Smt Nanda… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with directions: liberty to respondent No.1 to apply for modified sanction plan; Greater Bengaluru Authority to hear the petitioner, inspect the property, determine the extent of violation of present building bye-laws and pass a demolition order; demolition of any construction found violating; mutual interim restraints; completion within three months.

Issue for consideration

Whether the construction put up by respondent No.1 is in violation of building bye-laws and the sanction plan such that it is required to be removed/demolished. +1 more

Court's answer

Liberty is granted to respondent No.1 to apply for a modified sanction plan.

Ratio / Principle

The Greater Bengaluru Authority shall consider respondent No.1's request, hear the petitioner, inspect the property, and thereafter decide the extent to which the building constructed by respondent No.1 violates the present building bye-laws and pass an order for demolition of the same.

Key takeaways

If any of the construction put up by respondent No.1 is found to be in violation of the present building bye-laws, the same shall be demolished by the respondents.ratio¶¶44
Until the Greater Bengaluru Authority takes its decision, respondent No.1 shall not put up any additional construction on the property, and respondent Nos.2 to 4 shall not precipitate the matter against respondent No.1.ratio¶¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (LB-RES) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (M.I. Arun, J.). The petitioner alleged that respondent No.1's construction violated building bye-laws and the sanction plan and that the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (now Greater Bengaluru Authority) had not initiated adequate action despite a complaint; the matter was concurrently before the Joint Commissioner. Counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that much of the construction could be saved under the amended bye-laws but agreed, after due inspection, to demolition of the portion violating the building bye-laws. Disposing of the petition, the Court directed: liberty to respondent No.1 to apply for a modified sanction plan; the Greater Bengaluru Authority to consider the request, hear the petitioner, inspect the property and decide the extent of violation of the present building bye-laws and pass an order for demolition; demolition of any construction found in violation; interim restraint on additional construction by respondent No.1 and on precipitative action by respondent Nos.2 to 4; completion of the entire exercise within three months.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17487 WP No. 32435 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 32435 OF 2025 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

MANASA CHANDRA MAYANNA SANABAGHATTA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O.LATE. MAYANNA, REPRESENTED BY ITS GPA HOLDER SMT. K V SHANTHA, AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS W/O. LATE S M MAYANNA, R/AT NO.47, 5^TH MAIN ROAD, R.P.C. LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR 2^ND STAGE, HAMPINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 040

…PETITIONER

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

(BY SRI. B.S. JEEVAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT NANDA JAGADEESH W/O. JAGDEESH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT NO.49, 5^TH MAIN ROAD, R.P.C. LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, 2^ND STAGE, HAMPINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 040

THE COMMISSIONER, BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17487 WP No. 32435 of 2025

HC-KAR

N.R.SQUARE,

BENGALURU-01

THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY, B.B.M.P OFFICE, BENGALURU-01

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER VIJAYANAGAR SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU WEST NAGARA PALIKE WARD-2 OFFICE AT SHASAKARA BHAVANA, 2ND FLOOR, 3RD MAIN ROAD, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 040.

GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY NO.1, ALI ASKAR ROAD, LRDE BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 052

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. VIVEK S. REDDY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. HEGDE M. MAHABALESHWAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SMT. M.R. SINCHANA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R5)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT TO THE RESPONDENTS A. TO THE SECONDS RESPONDENTS TO INITIATE FURTHER ACTION PURSUANT TO THE NOTICE ISSUED TO R1 NO. 22.09.2025 OF BBMP ACT ANNEXURE-K AND ETC.

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

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17487 WP No. 32435 of 2025

HC-KAR

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

ORAL ORDER

On the allegation that respondent No.1 has put up construction in violation of building bye-laws and sanction plan, the petitioner made a complaint to the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike now Greater Bengaluru Authority. However, on the ground that adequate action has not been initiated against respondent No.1, the present writ petition is filed. The grievance of the petitioner is that the construction put up by respondent No.1 is in violation of building bye-laws and sanction plan is required to be removed.

Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that in the light of the amended bye-laws, much of the construction being put up by respondent No.1 can be saved. However, he submits that after due inspection, he is agreeable to demolition of that portion of the constructed property, which is in the violation of building bye-laws.

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17487 WP No. 32435 of 2025

HC-KAR

3. Learned counsel for the Bruhat Bengaluru

Mahanagara Palike/Greater Bengaluru Authority, upon instructions, submits that the matter between the petitioner and respondent No.1 is also being heard by Joint Commissioner and a decision will be taken on the construction being put up by respondent No.1 immediately thereafter. Hence, the following:

ORDER

i) Liberty is granted to respondent No.1 to apply for modified sanction plan.

ii) Greater Bengaluru Authority shall consider the request of respondent No.1 and also hear the petitioner and inspect the property and thereafter take a decision as to what extent of building being constructed by respondent No.1 is in violation of the present building bye-laws and pass an order for demolition of the same.

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:17487 WP No. 32435 of 2025

HC-KAR

iii) In the event, any of the construction being put up by respondent No.1 is found to be violation of present building bye-laws, the same shall be demolished by the respondents.

iv) Till such a decision is taken by Greater Bengaluru Authority, respondent No.1 shall not put up any additional construction on the property and respondent Nos.2 to 4 shall not precipitate the matter against respondent No.1.

v) The entire aforementioned exercise will be completed by respondent Nos.2 to 4 within a period of three months from today.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of .

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

KA, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33