Sri Guru H M Vs Bangalore Development Authority — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Sri Guru H M Vs Bangalore Development Authority — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of: BDA restrained from acting pursuant to the Annexure-A notice and from demolition or directing cut-off of essential amenities till adjudication of the sanction-plan violation proceedings concludes; liberty to issue a fresh notice, deemed a continuation of Annexure-A, stating the alleged violations, with reply and adjudication thereafter; all contentions kept open. I.A.No.1/2026 disposed (certified copy of Annexure-A dispensed with); I.A.No.2/2026 disposed (typed/legible copies of Annexures-G, H, J and N waived).

Issue for consideration

Whether the notice dated 17.02.2026 (Annexure-A) issued by respondent No.2 is sustainable when it does not specify the nature of the alleged violations of the sanctioned plan. +1 more

Court's answer

The Annexure-A notice is defective because it does not state the nature of the alleged violations; deviations from the sanction plan must be stipulated so that the petitioner can take a stand in reply regarding the alleged violation said to have occurred during construction.

Ratio / Principle

The authority may issue a fresh notice, deemed to be a continuation of the Annexure-A notice, stating the nature of the alleged violation; the petitioner may then reply and the authority may adjudicate the proceedings as permissible under the provisions of the Karnataka Municipalities Act.

Key takeaways

The BDA is restrained from taking any action pursuant to the Annexure-A notice until the proceedings relating to ascertainment of violation of the sanction plan are adjudicated as per the scheme under the Act, and is restrained from demolition or from giving instructions to cut off essential amenities until such proceedings conclude; all contentions kept open.ratio¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (S Sunil Dutt Yadav, J.), 03.03.2026 — W.P. No. 6415 of 2026 (BDA): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging a BDA notice dated 17.02.2026 (Annexure-A) alleging violation of the sanction plan and threatening further action including informing the electricity supply authorities to cut off power supply. The Court found that the notice did not refer to the nature of the violations and held that deviations from the sanction plan ought to be stipulated so as to enable the petitioner to take a stand in reply. Petition disposed of: BDA restrained from taking any action pursuant to the notice, and restrained from demolition or from giving instructions to cut off essential amenities, till the ascertainment/adjudication of the violation of the sanction plan as per the scheme under the Act; the authority was permitted to issue a fresh notice, deemed a continuation of Annexure-A, stating the nature of the alleged violation, upon which the petitioner may reply and the authority may adjudicate as permissible under the provisions of the Karnataka Municipalities Act. All contentions kept open. I.A.No.1/2026 disposed by dispensing production of a certified copy of Annexure-A; I.A.No.2/2026 disposed by waiving typed/legible copies of Annexures-G, H, J and N.

NC: 2026:KHC:12848 WP No. 6415 of 2026

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

WRIT PETITION NO. 6415 OF 2026 (BDA)

BETWEEN:

SRI. GURU H. M. S/O. MUNIRAJU V., AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT NO.1113, 6^TH BLOCK, C SECTOR, NPKL LAYOUT, HOSAPALAYA, RAMOHALLI POST, BENGALURU -560 060.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. NISHANTH A. V., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560 020, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NO.2 SUB-DIVISION, NADAPRABHU KEMPEGOWDA LAYOUT DIVISION, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BENGALURU - 560 020.

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:12848 WP No. 6415 of 2026

HC-KAR

BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED (BESCOM), REPRESENTED BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K-1 SUB- DIVISION, KENGERI, BENGALURU - 560 060.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI. A. CHANDRACHUD, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 17.02.2026 BEARING NO.BEN.A.PRA/ SAKANIA (NPKL)/15/2025-26 ISSUED BY THE R2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has called in question the correctness

of the validity of the notice dated 17.02.2026, whereby the respondent - Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) has noticed that there has been violation in the sanction plan vis-a-vis the construction put up and that further action would be taken, including informing the electricity supply authorities to cut off the power supply.

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:12848 WP No. 6415 of 2026

HC-KAR

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the notice at Annexure-A is bereft of details and does not specify the alleged violation. It is submitted that unless the notice contains details regarding alleged violation, the petitioner will not be in a position to take his stand by way of reply and satisfy the authorities as to the adherence to sanction plan and the applicable rules during construction.

Learned counsel Sri. K. Krishna appearing for the respondent - BDA submits that the notice could have been issued after noticing violations.

Having perused the notice at Annexure-A, it is

clear that the notice does not refer to the nature of violations. The violations of the sanction plan by way of deviation in construction ought to be stipulated in order to enable the petitioner to take a stand as regards alleged violation of sanction plan that is stated to have occurred while putting up constructions.

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:12848 WP No. 6415 of 2026

HC-KAR

Accordingly, petition is disposed of, restraining the respondent - BDA from taking any action pursuant to the notice at Annexure-A, till the proceedings relating to ascertainment of violation of sanction plan are adjudicated upon as per the scheme under the Act.

The authority may issue a fresh notice which would be deemed to be a continuation of notice at Annexure-A and such notice to state the nature of alleged violation upon which petitioner to make out his reply and the authority may adjudicate upon the proceedings as is permissible under the provisions of Karnataka Municipalities Act.

Needless to state, till the proceedings initiated are concluded regarding violation of the sanction plan, the authority is restrained from taking any action towards demolition or giving instructions to the authority to cut of the essential amenities. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of . All contentions are kept open.

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:12848 WP No. 6415 of 2026

HC-KAR

I.A.No.1/2026 is disposed of, by dispensing the

petitioner from production of certified copy of Annexure-A. I.A.No.2/2026 is disposed of, by waiving of the requirement of production of typed/legible copy of Annexures-G, H, J and N.

Sd/(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE

MCR