- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1321 WP No. 19606 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 19606 OF 2024 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. PROFESSOR DR. DHIRENDRA V. KUBAIR S/O LATE PROFESSOR DR. V.G. KUBAIR AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 81/1 PROFESSOR V.G. KUBAIR S APARTMENTS 4TH MAIN ROAD MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU 560003 CELLULAR PH 8277644621 EMAIL DV.KUBAIR @GMAIL.COM 2. MRS. BHAGYASHREE KUBAIR W/O PROFESSOR DR. DHIRENDRA V. KUBAIR AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 81/1 PROFESSOR V.G. KUBAIR S APARTMENTS 4TH MAIN ROAD MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU 560003 CELLULAR PH 8277562621 EMAIL BAGI5576@GMALL.COM …PETITIONERS (PROFESSOR DR.DHIRENDRA V.KUBAIR., PETITIONER (PARTY-IN-PERSON)) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560001 2. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER T. CHOWDIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU 560020 Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1321 WP No. 19606 of 2024 3. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP) REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER NO. 1, N.R. SQUARE, RANI KITTOOR CHENNAMMA CIRCLE HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560001 4. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING (WEST ZONE) BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP) SAMPIGE ROAD OPP. MANTRI MALL BHASHYAM PARK, SHESHADRIPURAM BENGALURU-560020 5. MR. VINAY KRISHNA H.V. AGED 34 YEARS S/O LATE H.V. NANDAKUMAR NO. 81, 4TH MAIN ROAD MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU 560003 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BOPANNA BELLIAPPA., AGA FOR R-1; SRI. VASANTH., ADVOCATE FOR R-2; SMT. JYOTHI S.PATIL., ADVOCATE FOR R-3 & R-4; SRI.SUBRAMANYA.R., ADVOCATE FOR R-5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED BY PARTY IN PERSON UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ILLEGALLY SANCTIONED COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LICENSE / PLAN NO. BBMP/CC/0430/20-21, LP.NO. BBMP AD.COM/WST/1248/19-20 (PRODUCED AS ANNX-B) DTD. 28.05.2020 BY THE R-4 (ADTP (WEST) BBMP), ETC. 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 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1321 WP No. 19606 of 2024 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner (appearing in in-person) is challenging the commercial-residential plan which was issued by respondent No.4 in favour of respondent No.5 on 28.05.2020. 2. The learned counsel for respondent No.5 submits that pursuant to the approval accorded for construction of the commercial-residential building, respondent No.5 has in fact put up the construction. 3. It is also contended that since the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (‘BBMP') has issued a provisional order and also a confirmatory order regarding the alleged deviation from the sanctioned plan, an appeal has been filed by respondent No.5 before the Chief Commissioner and the same is pending consideration. These facts are not in dispute. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1321 WP No. 19606 of 2024 4. It is clear that the plan was sanctioned on 28.05.2020, yet this petition has been filed four years thereafter on 22.07.2024. 5. If the petitioner was aggrieved by the grant of a building plan, he ought to have taken steps immediately. The averments found in the order of the Chief Commissioner indicates that the petitioner’s application for impleading himself was allowed on 07.10.2023 and in paragraph 10.01, it is stated as follows: “10. Grounds urged by the Respondent No.3 & 4: The respondent No.3 & 4 filed the impleading application on 19-08-2023 and the application was allowed on 07-10-2023 and the averments of the impleading application was considered as objections to the present appeal. The contentions raised by the Respondent No.3 & 4 are hereunder: 01. The respondents have admitted that, the building in question is a mixed residential commercial complex and the sanctioned plan was issued on 28-05-2020, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1321 WP No. 19606 of 2024 vide LP No.BBMP/Ad.com/WST/1284/2019-20. The said respondents have made the serious allegations that, the resp. No.1 & 2 have made a grave mistake in sanctioning the plan for mixed commercial & residential purpose. In particular the 4th Main Road and Malleshwaram is only measuring 12 mtrs of width which is less than stipulated to 40ft and no public transport plays on this lane. In order to substantiate his argument that, he has mentioned that, there are no commercial units on the entire stretch of 4th Main Road Malleshwaram. On this basis the resp. No.3 & 4 have prayed for the quashing of the sanctioned plan which ought to have been only the residential plan.” 6. It is therefore clear that the petitioner was aware of the plan that had been sanctioned in the year 2020 and he did not choose to challenge the sanctioned plan. If by the time a sanctioned plan is challenged the building is already constructed, the question of considering whether the sanctioned plan was valid or invalid would be inappropriate. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1321 WP No. 19606 of 2024 7. It is also to be noticed here that the petitioner is the neighbour of the contesting respondent and therefore, was very much aware about the building being constructed by respondent No.5. 8. It is also admitted that the petitioner did lodge several complaints regarding the deviation from the construction that was being put up by respondent No.5. This would therefore also go to show that the petitioner was aware that there was a plan sanctioned in favour of respondent No.5 and his main grievance then was that there was deviation from the sanctioned plan and I am therefore, of the view that there is no justification to entertain a plea to examine the validity of a plan that was sanctioned in the year 2020. The petition is therefore liable to be dismissed. 9. However, the dismissal of this petition shall not be construed as conferring legitimacy on the building that is constructed. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:1321 WP No. 19606 of 2024 10. If respondent No.5 has indeed put up a construction in contravention of the terms of the sanctioned plan and the licence issued in his favor, it is needless to state that the BBMP would be obligated to initiate appropriate action or if it is already initiated, conclude the proceedings expeditiously. 11. Subject to the above, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63