- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19964 WP No. 2388 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 2388 OF 2019 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: SRI. N. SATISH S/O H. NARAYANA REDDY RESIDING AT NO.406, 4TH FLOOR ANISHA STONE YARD EAST WING, L.B. SHASTRY NAGAR BANGALORE-560017. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI KUMAR .S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE (B.B.M.P)., N.R. SQUARE BANGALORE-560002. 2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (EAST) MAHADEVAPURA ZONE BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE (B.B.M.P), BANGALORE-560048. 3. SMT. N. USHA D/O H. NARAYANA REDDY W/O GOPALAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.377 JEEVAN BHEEMANAGAR TIMMA REDDY LAYOUT BANGALORE-560075. Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19964 WP No. 2388 of 2019 4. SRI. N. RAJA REDDY S/O LATE K. NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.147, OPP. TULASI THEATRE MARTHAHALLI, VARTHUR HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE-560066. 5. SRI. N. KESHAVA REDDY S/O LATE K. NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.147 OPP. TULASI THEATRE MARATHAHALLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE-560066. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. AMIT DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. KIRAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R5; R3 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 AND 2 TO DEMOLISH ALL ILLEGAL AND UNAUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION PUT UP BY THE R-3 TO R-5 ON SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The captioned petition is filed seeking a direction against respondent Nos.1 and 2 to demolish the unauthorized construction undertaken by respondent - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19964 WP No. 2388 of 2019 Nos.3 to 5 on the schedule property in compliance of the order of demolition passed under Section 321(3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (for short 'the 1976 Act'). 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the BBMP. Perused the records. 3. At the instance of the petitioner, the respondent No.1 initiated proceedings under Section 321 of the 1976 Act. Having issued a provisional order, the respondent No.1 has passed a confirmation order under Section 321(3) thereby directing the private respondents to demolish the illegal construction undertaken by them. Though this order of demolition issued under Section 321(3) was assailed by the respondent Nos.4 and 5 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.114/2018, the order sheet produced at Annexure-K clearly reveals that a memo is filed by the respondents and appeal is withdrawn. Once appeal is withdrawn, it presupposes that - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19964 WP No. 2388 of 2019 private respondent Nos.4 and 5 have accepted the confirmation order passed by the authority under Section 321(3) of the 1976 Act. 4. Though this order has attained finality, there is a clear laxness on the part of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in not taking further course of action as provided under the 1976 Act. 5. The petitioner, who asserts and claims to be a joint owner of the subject property, is aggrieved by the unauthorised construction being carried out by respondent Nos.4 and 5. The said respondents, without securing a building licence or obtaining the requisite sanction of building plans from the competent municipal authority, have proceeded to raise construction in blatant violation of the provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. 6. This illegality being brought to the notice of the respondent-authorities, respondent Nos.1 and 2, after due - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19964 WP No. 2388 of 2019 consideration of the petitioner’s complaint and upon conducting appropriate proceedings, have rightly passed a confirmation order under Section 321(3) of the 1976 Act, as evidenced by Annexure-H. The said confirmation order categorically records that the construction undertaken is unauthorised and warrants demolition. 7. However, the grievance of the petitioner is that even after the passing of a valid and binding confirmation order, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have failed to take necessary action to enforce the same. Their inaction in the face of an admitted and confirmed illegality not only defeats the very object and purpose of Section 321 of the Act but also undermines the rule of law and emboldens encroachers and violators of municipal laws. 8. It is a settled principle of law that once an authority passes an order in exercise of its statutory power, it is legally bound to enforce and implement the same, unless the said order is stayed or set aside by a - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19964 WP No. 2388 of 2019 competent court. The failure to enforce a demolition order passed under Section 321(3) is not merely administrative apathy but amounts to abdication of statutory duty. The municipal authorities are trustees of public interest and are expected to act promptly and diligently in curbing unauthorised constructions, which otherwise permanently alter urban planning and infringe on the rights of lawful property holders. 9. In the present case, the inaction of the authorities, despite the existence of a confirmation order, is arbitrary, unreasonable, and liable to be condemned. The petitioner, as a joint owner of the property, has a fundamental and legal right to seek enforcement of the demolition order, and in the face of continued inaction, is entitled to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus. 10. This is therefore a fit case where a writ of mandamus deserves to be issued directing respondent - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19964 WP No. 2388 of 2019 Nos.1 and 2 to forthwith enforce and implement the confirmation order passed under Section 321(3) and demolish the unauthorised structure put up by respondent Nos.4 and 5, in accordance with law. 11. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed; (ii) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are hereby directed to forthwith initiate and take appropriate action in accordance with law pursuant to the confirmation order passed under Section 321(3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, including the demolition of the unauthorised structure put up by respondent Nos.4 and 5. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42