WA/1601/2025 of SMT N JAYASHREE Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA on 17 April 2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

This intra Court appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 01.09.2025 passed by the writ Court in W.P.No.26477/2024.

2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Writ Court, for the sake of convenience.

3. The petitioner, who happens to be the neighbour of respondent No.6 - Rajendra Kumar Jain, has approached the writ Court in Writ Petition No.26477/2024, seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent Nos.1 to 5 to take decisions in accordance with the

HC-KAR

provisions of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act and Rules to remove the illegal construction on Site No.34, having PID No.27-88-34, 3rd Cross, 4th Block, Kumara Park West, Bengaluru.

4. The learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment and order, directed the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (for short, `BBMP'), to take action if there is any illegal construction of the building and respondent No.6 was also directed not to put up any additional construction, but, respondent No.6 was permitted to carry out the interior works on the structure already put up. This order passed by the learned Single Judge has been challenged by the appellant/petitioner stating that, without there being any sanctioned building plan by the competent authority, the respondent No.6 has illegally and unauthorisedly constructed the building over the site in question and the learned Single Judge, instead of directing BBMP to remove the illegal and unauthorized construction,

HC-KAR

has allowed respondent No.6 to finish the alleged illegal construction put up by the respondent No.6.

5. This Court vide order dated 12th March 2026, directed the BBMP/concerned Corporation to file an affidavit in terms of the order dated 29.10.2025, along with videographs of the construction made by respondent No.6 and point out the violations, if any, in putting up the construction by respondent No.6. It was also directed that, if there were violations in the opinion of the BBMP/concerned Corporation, it should clarify as to what action would be taken for putting up the construction in violation of the Master Plan/relevant Rules/Regulations. A further direction was given to the concerned Corporation to clarify whether the construction put up by respondent No.6 was in pursuance to the plan sanctioned for such construction or without the sanctioned plan.

6. The order dated 12.03.2026 reads as under :

HC-KAR

" Learned counsel for the BBMP/Concerned Corporation seeks and granted one week time to file an affidavit in terms of the order dated 29.10.2025 along with video graphs of the construction made by respondent No.6, and point out the violations, if any, in putting up the construction by respondent No.6. If there are violations in the opinion of the BBMP/concerned Corporation, it should also be clarified that what action would be taken for putting up the construction in violation of the Master Plan/relevant rules.

The BBMP/ Concerned Corporation will also clarify whether the construction put up by respondent no.6 was in pursuance to the plan sanctioned for such construction or without the sanctioned plan.

Re-list this appeal on 26.03.2026."

7. In compliance of the order dated 12th March 2026, an affidavit came to be filed by one Smt.Shanthala, Assistant Executive Engineer, Bengaluru Central City Corporation, Bengaluru. We found that Smt.Shantala was not the competent person to file the affidavit and

HC-KAR

therefore, we rejected the affidavit and directed the Commissioner of the Corporation to file an affidavit.

8. Mr.P.Rajendra Cholan, Commissioner of Bengaluru Central City Corporation, Bengaluru, has filed an affidavit as directed by this Court vide order dated 26.03.2026, read with order dated 12.03.2026. In paragraph-8 of the affidavit, it has been stated that, subsequent to the order dated 29.10.2025 passed by this Court, the concerned officials have sanctioned the modified plain on 16.03.2026 and the said plan was sanctioned to the 6th respondent on his application, however, 6th respondent did not disclose the pending proceedings before the High Court. In view of the provisions of clause No.47 of the terms and conditions of the sanctioned building plan, the Corporation had withdrawn the sanctioned plain on 31.03.2026.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the Corporation has filed a memo bringing on record the action taken by the Corporation against the officials who had issued the

HC-KAR

modified plain in favour of respondent No.6 and show cause notice had been issued on 04.04.2026 against the concerned officials.

10. The learned counsel appearing for the Corporation further submits that, for taking appropriate action against the 6th respondent for putting up illegal and unauthorized construction, the Corporation is going to issue a notice and after hearing him, take appropriate action in accordance with law.

11. We therefore dispose of this appeal, with liberty to the Corporation to take appropriate action against respondent No.6, if it is of the opinion that respondent No.6 has put up the construction unauthorisedly without there being any authorized sanctioned plan.

We further direct that respondent No.6 should not put up any further construction without there being a proper sanctioned plan for putting up further construction.

HC-KAR

The process as directed above should be completed within a period of two months from today.

With the aforesaid directions, the Writ Appeal stands disposed of. In view of disposal of the appeal, pending I.As., if any, does not survive for consideration and the same are disposed of.

Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE

Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

BK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16