Dismissed¶38

M/S Adarsh Constructions v. Greater Bengaluru Authority

Karnataka HC2 Apr 2026WP/9935/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: eviction order; demolition; coercive steps; construction in violation of building bye-laws and sanctioned plan; BBMP; Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA); Assistant Executive Engineer; Zonal Commissioner; Assistant Director of Town Planning; alternative and efficacious remedy; appeal under Section 250 of Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024; Articles 226 and 227, Constitution of India; writ petition dismissed; liberty to approach appellate authority; O.S. No.26137/2023 withdrawn; clean hands; Bengaluru; LB-BMP.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority in the manner known to law. ¶38

M/S Adarsh Constructions Vs Greater Bengaluru… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief granted; liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority in the manner known to law.

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the eviction order dated 09.03.2026 was issued against the petitioner without issuing the notices as contemplated by law. +1 more

¶32

Court's answer

Recorded observation: learned counsel for the petitioner was not in a position to contravene the submissions of counsel for the respondents (that the statutory notices and prior orders were served, and that the petitioner had earlier filed and withdrawn O.S. No.26137/2023 relating to the same property without disclosing these facts).

¶37

Ratio / Principle

Against the impugned order there is an appeal provision as per Section 250 of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024.

¶38

Key takeaways

The petitioner having an alternative and efficacious remedy, the writ petition is dismissed, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority in the manner known to law.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by M/s Adarsh Constructions Partnership Firm against the eviction order dated 09.03.2026 (Annexure-A) issued by R4 (Assistant Executive Engineer, BBMP) on the allegation that the petitioner put up construction in violation of building bye-laws and the sanctioned plan; the petitioner's ground was that the notices contemplated by law were not issued before the eviction order. Counsel for GBA/BBMP submitted that all requisite notices and previous orders were served, and that the petitioner had earlier filed and withdrawn O.S. No.26137/2023 concerning the same property without disclosing these facts; petitioner's counsel could not controvert. The Court (M.I. Arun, J.) noticed that an appeal provision exists as per Section 250 of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024; the petitioner having an alternative and efficacious remedy, the writ petition was dismissed with liberty reserved to approach the appellate authority in the manner known to law.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:18014 WP No. 9935 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 9935 OF 2026 (LB-BMP)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M/S ADARSH CONSTRUCTIONS PARTNERSHIP FIRM, NO 101, MANJUNATHA COMPLEX, 22^ND MAIN ROAD, BSK 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU-70, REP BY ITS PARTNER S.E.MANJUNATH

¶10

&PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR G S, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY(GBA)/ BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA

¶15

PALIKE (BBMP)/ N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE - 560 002, REP. BY ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING (CENTRAL ZONE, BENGALURU) 9^TH MAIN RD, 2^ND BLOCK, JAYA NAGAR EAST, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU 3 560 011.

¶17

THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER, BBMP BENGALURU CENTRAL ZONE

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:18014 WP No. 9935 of 2026

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

9^TH MAIN RD, 2^ND BLOCK, JAYA NAGAR EAST, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU 3 560 011.

¶22

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BBMP BENGALURU, SHAKAMBARI NAGAR SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU SOUTH JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU 3 560 011

¶23

&RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶25

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED EVICTION ORDER DATED 09.03.2026 (ANNEXURE-A) ISSUED BY R4 GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO PENDING THE FINAL HEARING AND DISPOSAL OF THIS WRIT PETITION, THIS HONBLE COURT BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE OPERATION AND EXECUTION OF THE IMPUGNED NOTICE/EVICTION ISSUED BY R4 DATED 09.03.2026 (ANNEXURE-A) AND FURTHER RESTRAIN THE RESPONDENTS, THEIR SUBORDINATES, OR AGENTS FROM TAKING ANY COERCIVE STEPS, INCLUDING THE DEMOLITION OF THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE OR THE EVICTION OF THE PETITIONER/OCCUPANTS FROM THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:18014 WP No. 9935 of 2026

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

This writ petition is filed against the order dated 09.03.2026 [Annexure-A to the writ petition] which is passed on the allegation that petitioner has put up construction in violation of building bye-laws and sanctioned plan, orders have been passed and consequently an eviction order dated 09.03.2026 has been issued against the petitioner. On the ground that without issuing the notices as contemplated by law and that eviction order dated 09.03.2026 is issued against the petitioner, the present writ petition is filed.

¶33

Learned counsel for GBA, on instructions submits that all the notices as required under law and all the previous orders prior to passing of the eviction order dated 09.03.2026 have been served on the petitioner, he also brings to the notice of this Court the suit in O.S. No.26137/2023 filed by the petitioner against the then BBMP in respect to the same property and submits that the same has been subsequently withdrawn by the petitioner. He further submits that the present petition is filed without disclosing all these facts and the petitioner has not come with clean hands to the Court.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:18014 WP No. 9935 of 2026

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to contravene the submission made by the counsel for respondent.

¶38

Further it is noticed that against the impugned order, there is an appeal provision as per Section 250 of Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024. As the petitioner is having an alternative and efficacious remedy, the writ petition is hereby dismissed reserving the liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority in the manner known to law.

¶39

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶40

AN/-

M/S Adarsh Constructions v. Greater Bengaluru Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Adarsh Constructions v. Greater Bengaluru Authority

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

M/S Sai Sumukha Properties Vs the Chief Commissioner

Sri Rajashekar, Vs the Commissioner

Smt Shashikala Vs the Executive Officer (E.O)

Mr. Mahboob Sheriff Vs the Commissioner

Smt. Shylaja M Vs the State of Karnataka

Suresh Kumar, Vs Greater Bengaluru Authority