- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1370 WP No. 37833 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 37833 OF 2016 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. SMT SUJATHA W/O DR N VIJAYA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.4/4, 3RD FLOOR, PENT HOSUE OSSONGNESSEY ROAD, LONGFORD TOWN BANGALORE-560 025 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ARJUN REGO., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, REICHMOND TOWN SUB-DIVISION 7TH FLOOR PUBLIC UTILITY BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001 2. THE COMMISSIONER CORPORATION OF CITY OF BANGALORE (NOW BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE), BANGALORE-560 001. 3. ORCHID VOYAGES (P) LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT No.4/1, 1ST FLOOR., O.SHAUGHNESSY ROAD, LANGFORD TOWN, BANGALORE-560 025. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR MR.K.RAVISHANKAR, Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1370 WP No. 37833 of 2016 AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O S.KRISHNA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI. V.V.GUNJAL., ADVOCATE FOR R-3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE WRIT PETITION QUASH THE ORDER DATED.29.2.2016 OF THE KARNATAKA APPELALTE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN APPEAL NO.222/2009 AT ANNEXURE-A, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. An order of confirmation was passed by the BBMP stating that the petitioner had deviated from the sanctioned plan and had constructed the 3rd and 4th floor without a plan. 2. In the earlier round of litigation, the petitioner had produced a revised sanctioned plan of the year 1999 bearing LP.No. C 497/1998-99 contending that the petitioner had obtained a revised sanctioned plan through an Architect and, therefore, the structure was not illegal and there was no deviation. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1370 WP No. 37833 of 2016 3. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court taking note of the stand of the BBMP that there was no records available to indicate that it had sanctioned a revised sanctioned plan, referred the matter for initiation of contempt proceedings before this Court to the Division Bench. The Division Bench in Criminal C.C.C.No.22/2010 took note of the contentions raised by both the parties, and ultimately concluded as follows: “25. We are of the view that there is no intentional or deliberate act on the part of the accused to mislead this Court by producing a fabricated or false document. 26. Keeping all the above aspects in mind, this Court is of the opinion that the Accused deserves the benefit of doubt. Though there is a cloud handing on the veracity of the revised sanctioned plan, unless a proper enquiry is held and it is established that the document is a fraudulent one, at this stage, it will not be reasonable to proceed against the Accused for committing contempt of Court”. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1370 WP No. 37833 of 2016 4. In light of this order of the Division Bench, it is clear that the essential ingredient to be ascertained before a conclusion can be arrived that the construction was illegal, was to verify whether the BBMP had sanctioned a revised building plan. Unless, this essential fact is determined, further proceedings regarding the validity of the construction cannot be ascertained. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal has passed the impugned order in 2016 i.e., much before passing of the order by the criminal contempt i.e., in Criminal C.C.C.No.22/2010. 5. In my view, it would be appropriate to set aside the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and remand the matter to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal with a direction to it to take note of the order passed by the Division Bench in Criminal C.C.C.No.22/2010 and record a finding as to whether the revised sanctioned plan bearing LP No. C 497/1998-99 dated 24.11.1999 is in fact a genuine - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1370 WP No. 37833 of 2016 plan or was it a created plan. If the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the plan was concocted, the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal may proceed to decide the appeal afresh on merits. The Corporation (BBMP) is directed to produce all the records and its possession regarding the sanction of the first plan in the year 1997 and also the revised plan referred to above, if they are available. 6. Since, the entire proceedings regarding the deviation from construction arouse out of a complaint lodged by the proposed 3rd respondent, the proposed 3rd respondent is also directed to be impleaded as an additional respondent before the KAT in Appeal No.222/2009 i.e., the matter which is now remanded. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1370 WP No. 37833 of 2016 7. Since both the parties are represented by their counsel, they are hereby directed to appear before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal on 12.02.2025. 8. This petition is accordingly allowed and remanded. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE GSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14