- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3693 WP No. 25075 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 25075 OF 2024 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. MR. LIONEL P CARDOZA SON OF LOUIS C CARDOZA AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS NO.5, WARE ROAD FRASER TOWN, PULIKESHINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 005. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VENKATESH S ARBATTI., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE N R SQUARE, HUDSON CIRCLE BENGALURU – 560 002. 2. ZONAL COMMISSIONER (EAST ZONE) BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE PULIKESHINAGAR SUB-DIVISION, COX TOWN, BENGALURU – 560 005. 3. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING EAST ZONE BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE PUBLIC UTILITY BUILDING, M G ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001. 4. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE PULIKESHINAGAR DIVISION, COX TOWN, BENGALURU – 560 005. Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3693 WP No. 25075 of 2024 5. MR. A BARKATULLA KHAN FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER MAJOR RESIDING AT 4TH FLOOR, NO. 74/1 LE BON MANOR APARTMENTS, CHARLES CAMPBELL ROAD, COX TOWN, BENGALURU – 560 005. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN REDDY K S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. Y K NARAYANA SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA DIRECT TO THE R-1 TO 4 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DTD 08.08.2024 AT ANNEXURE-D AND TAKE NECESSARY ACTION UNDER SEC 248 OF THE BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE ACT OF 2020 AND BUILDING BYE-LAWS FOR REVOCATION OR CANCELLATION OF THE SANCTIONED PLAN AT ANNEXURE-C FOR THE ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION CARRIED OUT BY THE R-5 ON THE PROPERTY BEARING NO. 4/1 (P-I-D NO. 91-79-4/1) WARE ROAD, FRAZER TOWN, TO THE SAID PROPERTY AND ETC. THIS PETITION, 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. The prayer in this petition is for issuance of a mandamus to direct respondent Nos.1 to 4 to consider the representation of the petitioner and to take necessary action for the alleged violation from the sanctioned plan and also for canceling sanctioned plan. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3693 WP No. 25075 of 2024 2. Pursuant to an order passed by this Court, the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike ('the BBMP') has filed an action taken report, which indicates that the BBMP has issued a provisional order in which it is stated that there are deviations from the sanctioned plan. Strictly speaking, the prayer sought for in this petition would not survive for consideration, in the light of the action taken by the BBMP. 3. However, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 Sri.Y.K.Narayana Sharma, submits that it would be appropriate to direct the BBMP to conduct a spot inspection to which the petitioner shall also be present and the BBMP shall verify whether the extent of the property tallies with the extent of the property indicated in the sanctioned plan and shall also suggest any remedial measures to ensure that the building that is being put up by petitioner can be brought within the building bye- laws. He submits that, if it is possible, the 5th - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3693 WP No. 25075 of 2024 respondent would also seek for a modification of the sanctioned plan so as to bring it within the ambit of the building bye-laws. 4. In the light of the above, in my view, instead of permitting respondent No.5 to file objections to the provisional order, it would be appropriate for the BBMP to conduct a spot inspection on 01.02.2025 at 11.00 am in the presence of the petitioner and verify whether the construction put up by the respondent No.5 is in accordance with the sanctioned plan. The BBMP shall also suggest any remedial measures to the petitioner to enable him to bring the building within the purview of the building bye-laws, if necessary, by seeking for modification of the sanctioned plan. 5. This exercise shall be undertaken and completed on or before 10.02.2025 and this petition is accordingly disposed of. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3693 WP No. 25075 of 2024 6. It is needless to state by virtue of the affidavit filed by the 5th respondent, he has undertaken that he would not proceed with any further construction and, therefore, it would be appropriate to direct the BBMP to unseal the property, which had been sealed pursuant to an order of this Court. 7. It is also needless to state that if the BBMP were to suggest remedial measures which would bring the building within bye-laws, the question of proceeding further under the provisional order would not arise. If however the remedial suggestions of the BBMP are unacceptable to the 5th respondent, it would be open for him to file objections to the provisional order and the BBMP can proceed thereafter. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE GSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5