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

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE ORDER DTD 15.02.2017 IN APPEAL NO.273/2009 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU VIDE ANNX-A 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

ORAL ORDER

¶29

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the

¶30

following reliefs;

¶31

i. Writ of Certiorari, quashing the order dated 15.02.2017 in Appeal No.272/2009 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal at Bengaluru, vide Annexure-A;

¶32

ii. Writ of Certiorari, quashing the Confirmation order dated 13.03.2009 in No.Sa.Ka.A/Kem.U.Vi/C.O./02/2008-09 issued under Section 321(2) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, confirming the Provisional Order dated 31.12.2008 in No.Sa.Ka A/Kem.U.Vi/P.O./03/2008-09, both issued by the 2^nd Respondent-Assistant Executive Engineer of BBMP, vide Annexure-B and C respectively.

¶33

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:641 WP No. 47885 of 2017

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

iii. Any other writ or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to meet the ends of justice.

¶36

The grievance of the petitioner was that the respondents had initiated proceedings under Section 321 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 and that they would demolish the construction put up by the petitioner on account of the fact that there is no plan sanction which had been obtained by the petitioner.

¶37

The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated 19.11.2025 had permitted the petitioner to submit a fresh plan for sanction as per the applicable building bylaws and directed the respondent to consider the same.

¶38

On enquiry today with the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether an application for change of land use has been filed along with the said application, he submits that such application has not been filed because the property has been zoned for commercial purposes under the revised master plan.

¶39

4 -

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:641 WP No. 47885 of 2017

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

Even if the property may be zoned for a particular

¶43

purpose, the fact would remain that the property has not been converted and as such it would be required for the petitioner to make necessary application along with the plan sanction seeking conversion as also change of land use in conformity with the zoning regulations.

¶44

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that such application would be filed within a period of three weeks from today i.e., on or before 29.01.2026.

¶45

In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that grievance of the petitioner could be redressed by directing the respondent to consider the application for change of land use as also the application for grant of plan sanctions in terms of the applicable law and restrain the respondent from taking any action for demolition or otherwise until such application is considered. As such, I pass the following;

¶46

5 -

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:641 WP No. 47885 of 2017

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

ORDER

¶50

i. The writ petition is partly-allowed.

¶51

ii. Petitioner is permitted to submit an application for change of land use which shall be so submitted on or before 29.01.2026.

¶52

iii. If such an application is submitted Bangalore Development Authority is directed to consider the said application for change of land use and pass necessary orders within a period of 60 days thereafter.

¶53

iv. In the event of change of land use being granted, respondent No.1 is directed to consider the application for plan sanction and process the same in accordance with law within a period of 60 days thereafter.

¶54

v. Until then, the respondents are restrained from taking any action against the petitioner for demolition of the constructed area.

¶55

6 -

¶56

NC: 2026:KHC:641 WP No. 47885 of 2017

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

vi. In the event of an application is permitted above is not filed and/or in the event of change of land use being rejected and/or the plan sanction not being granted on account of the same not being in accordance with law, then the respondent would be free to act on the order passed by the Karnataka Tribunal dated 15.02.2017 in Appeal No.273 of 2009.

¶59

SD/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶60

SR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.a.S.Ganesh v. the Bruhath 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 T Subaiah @ Subanna Vs the Commissioner

Smt Gayathri Vs State of Karnataka

Nizamuddin Vs State of Karnataka

Animal Rights Fund Vs Chief Secretary

Smt K R Manjula Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Janaki Billava Vs the State of Karnataka