- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5978 WP No. 18915 of 2024 C/W WP No. 30591 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 18915 OF 2024 (LB-BMP) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 30591 OF 2016 (LB-BMP) IN WP No. 18915/2024 BETWEEN: 1. UBAYA VEDANTA PRAVARTHANA SABHA (R) REPRESENTED BY THE HONORARY SECRETARY, SRI MANDAYAM K SRIDHAR S/O MANDAYAM K ETHIRAJAN, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 10 JANAKIRAMA NILAYA, SIRUR PARK ROAD, SIRUR PARK ROAD, MALLEHSWARAM, BENGALURU-560 094, REGISTERED UNDER MYSORE SOCIETIES REGULATION NO. 111 OF 1904. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, NR SQUARE, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5978 WP No. 18915 of 2024 C/W WP No. 30591 of 2016 MALLESWARAM SUB DIVISION, 11TH CROSS, BANGALORE-560 003. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K S MALLIKARJUNA REDDY, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 22/01/2024 BEARING NO. PRJ/8636/23-24 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE R2 AS AGAINST THE SUBJECT LAND. IN WP NO. 30591/2016 BETWEEN: 1. UBAYA VEDANTA PRAVARTHANA SABHA (R) REPRESENTED BY HONORARY SECRETARY, SRI R SRINIVASAN, S/O LATE RANGARAJAN S AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT NO. 100, FROM EAST PARK TO WEST PARK ROAD, 10TH CROSS CORNER, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE - 560 003. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. R SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VINAYAKA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, MALLESHWARA SUB-DIVN, 11TH CROSS, BANGALORE - 560 003. 3. THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5978 WP No. 18915 of 2024 C/W WP No. 30591 of 2016 CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX, BANGALURU - 560 001. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SMT. SPOORTHI V, HCGP FOR R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 22.5.2015 BEARING NO. SA.KA.NI.(MALLESHWARAM).KHA.AA.3/15-16 PASSED BY THE R-1 AND ALSO THE ORDER DTD 19.03.2016 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, THE R-3 HEREIN DTD 19.03.2016 IN APPEAL NO.693 OF 2015, VIDE ANNX-H AND K RESPECTIVELY. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. W.P.No.30591/2016 is filed challenging the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, by which the Tribunal has upheld the order of confirmation. 2. During the dependency of the said writ petition, the petitioner had made an application for modification of the plan so as to bring its building in conformity bye- - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5978 WP No. 18915 of 2024 C/W WP No. 30591 of 2016 laws. However, by an order dated 22.01.2024, the said application has been rejected and, as a consequence of which, WP No.18915/2024 has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner had made a submission before this Court that the portico on the Northern side of the building would be removed and it has accordingly removed the portico on the Northern side. The petitioner had made a submission that an application for modification of the plan would be submitted in order to see whether the portico on the Eastern side could be saved in terms of the applicable bye - laws. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the BBMP points out that the said application could not be considered as detailed in the endorsement dated 04.11.2024 and, therefore, there is no merit in either of the writ petitions. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5978 WP No. 18915 of 2024 C/W WP No. 30591 of 2016 5. Learned counsel thereafter points out that, pursuant to this order dated 04.11.2024, the Petitioner has resubmitted the application for a modified plan and submits that, if this application is considered, it is quite probable that the building would be within the conformity of the building bye-laws. 6. In view of the said submission, in my view, it would be appropriate to direct the BBMP to consider the resubmitted modified plan of the petitioner as indicated in the memo that is filed today and until the said application is considered, the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal shall not be given effect to. 7. The petitioner is however granted liberty to challenge the rejection, if any made by the BBMP on this resubmitted modified plan by filing a separate writ petition. These writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5978 WP No. 18915 of 2024 C/W WP No. 30591 of 2016 8. It is needless to state that all the contentions of either parties are kept open. 9. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE GSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1