- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5361 WP No. 65733 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 65733 OF 2016 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. SRI J NAGENDRA S/O LATE JOGAPPA, AGE 48 YEARS, OCC:SERVICE, R/AT NO.27/2, I MAIN ROAD, PALACE GUTTAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 003. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASANNA V R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, CORPORATION CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 002. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MALLESHWARAM SUB-DIVISION, BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BENGALURU-560 003. 3. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (WEST) THE BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, CORPORATION CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BATHE GOWDA K V., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5361 WP No. 65733 of 2016 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD.28.5.2016 IN APPEAL NO.1206/2012 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU VIDE ANNEX-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, by which it has confirmed the order passed under Section 321(3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. 2. A perusal of the provisional order indicates that the petitioner had deviated to the extent in the range of 25% to 100% insofar as it related to setback violations and in respect of coverage, to an extent 34.08%. 3. This Court had directed a spot inspection to be conducted and accordingly, a spot inspection was - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5361 WP No. 65733 of 2016 conducted and a report has been filed by the concerned Assistant Executive Engineer. 4. A perusal of the said report would indicate that the petitioner has complied with the setback requirements as per the Bye-laws and even the coverage is within the Bye-laws. 5. However, the Engineer has stated that the FAR exceeds the permissible limit by 0.09. 6. It is obvious that the spot inspection conducted by the Assistant Executive Engineer would indicate that the extents of deviation mentioned in the provisional order are incorrect. 7. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has put up the building in accordance with the Bye-laws and the extent of coverage is within the Bye-laws and the permissible FAR has been violated only to the extent 0.09, it would be appropriate to permit the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5361 WP No. 65733 of 2016 petitioner to seek for regularization of his construction. 8. Since the Bye-laws permit compounding up to 5% of the deviation, the petitioner shall make an appropriate application for compounding and the same shall be considered. 9. In view of the above, the impugned orders are set aside and the BBMP is directed to consider the request of the petitioner for regularization. 10. If, however, the BBMP is of the view that the deviation is in excess of the permissible limits, it may initiate fresh proceedings. 11. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41