Disposed¶30

Sri. M. Gundappa v. the Chief Commissioner

Karnataka HC7 Apr 2026WP/5634/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition (LB-BMP) under Article 227, Constitution of India; Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; Justice M.I. Arun; expedited disposal of Appeal No.7/2026 (PSR (A) 238/2025-26) before Chief Commissioner, Greater Bengaluru Authority; demolition direction by Joint Commissioner, Bommanahalli Zone-2, Bengaluru South City Palike; alleged illegal construction at Srinivagilu, Vivekanagar Post, Bengaluru; four-month timeline for appellate disposal; interim protection - respondents not to precipitate matter; no opinion on merits; neutral citation NC: 2026:KHC:18917.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no.1 to dispose of Appeal No.7/2026 within four months from receipt of a certified copy of the order; interim direction that the respondents shall not precipitate the matter against the petitioners until the appeal is decided.

Sri. M. Gundappa Vs the Chief Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent no.1 should be directed to take up and dispose of Appeal No.7/2026 (and consider IA No.1/2026) expeditiously, and whether the petitioners require interim protection to their construction until such decision.

¶28

Court's answer

Writ petition disposed of with a direction to respondent no.1 to dispose of Appeal No.7/2026 within four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

Till a decision is taken by respondent no.1, the respondents are directed not to precipitate the matter against the petitioners (interim protection to the construction).

¶30

Key takeaways

No opinion has been expressed on the merits of the case; respondent no.1 is to decide the appeal pending before it in the manner known to law based on the facts and circumstances of the case.ratio¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (M.I. Arun, J.) disposed of a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in which the petitioners, facing a demolition direction issued by respondent no.2 (Joint Commissioner, Bommanahalli Zone-2, Bengaluru South City Palike, Greater Bengaluru Authority) against alleged illegal construction, sought expedition of their statutory Appeal No.7/2026 (Appeal No.07/26 PSR (A) 238/2025-26) pending before respondent no.1 (Chief Commissioner, Greater Bengaluru Authority), along with consideration of IA No.1/2026. The Court directed respondent no.1 to dispose of the appeal within four months of receipt of a certified copy of the order and, until such decision, restrained the respondents from precipitating the matter against the petitioners. The Court expressly recorded that no opinion was expressed on the merits and left the appeal to be decided in accordance with law.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:18917 WP No. 5634 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.5634 OF 2026 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. M. GUNDAPPA S/O LATE MUNIRAMAIAH @ MUGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT NO.15, SRINIVAGILU MAIN ROAD, NEAR YELLAMMA TEMPLE, SRINIVAGILU, VIVEKANAGAR POST, BENGALURU - 560 047.

¶9

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

¶10

SRI. MUNIYAPPA R., S/O LATE RAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.15/1, SRINIVAGILU MAIN ROAD, NEAR YELLAMMA TEMPLE, SRINIVAGILU, VIVEKANAGAR POST, BENGALURU - 560 047.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. RAJAGOPALA T.K., ADVOCATE)

¶13

¶14

NC: 2026:KHC:18917 WP No. 5634 of 2026

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER, GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY, N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002.

¶18

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, BOMMANAHALLI ZONE-2, BENGALURU SOUTH CITY PALIKE, GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY, ZONE-2, BEGUR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 068.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶21

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO TAKE UP THE APPEAL NO.07/26 PSR (A) 238/2025-26 (ANNEXURE-A) AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE TIME AND CONSIDER IA NO.1/2026 FILED THEREIN, ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

NC: 2026:KHC:18917 WP No. 5634 of 2026

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The impugned order has been passed by respondent no.2 directing the petitioners to demolish the alleged illegal construction. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have preferred an Appeal No.7/2026 before the first respondent. The present writ petition is filed with a prayer to direct the first respondent to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible.

¶29

The case of the petitioners is that the proceedings before the first respondent are not conducted on a day-to-day basis, and until an order is passed by the first respondent, the petitioners require some protection to the construction put up by them.

¶30

Under the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to dispose of the appeal No.7/2026 within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Till a decision is taken by the first respondent, respondents are directed not to precipitate the matter against the petitioners.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:18917 WP No. 5634 of 2026

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

It is hereby made clear that no opinion has been

¶35

expressed on the merits of the case and the first respondent is directed to decide the appeal pending before it in the manner known to law based on the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶36

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶37

VMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Sri. M. Gundappa v. the Chief Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. M. Gundappa v. the Chief Commissioner

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 M Nagaraju Vs Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Sri a Chinnappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Miss Monika T Vs State of Karnataka

Nagaraja Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Prabhavathi R M Vs the Commissioner

M Mahaboob Ali Vs the Joint Commissioner