- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51440 WP No. 35747 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 35747 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: MRS. SARAVANAN J AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS SON OF JEEVARATHINAM T A R/AT NO.378, 8TH MAIN NEAR MANTRI CLASSIC APARTMENT ST BED LAYOUT, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE SOUTH, BANGALORE - 5600034 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. AJAY RAO., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT SOUTH NAGARA PALIKE KORAMANGALA SUB-DIVISION BANGALORE-560095. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BRUHAT SOUTH NAGARA PALIKE KORAMANGALA SUB-DIVISION BANGALORE 560095 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE RESPONDENTS) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 07.11.2025 ISSUED BY THE R2 UNDER SECTION 313 OF THE BBMP ACT, 2020 (AT ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51440 WP No. 35747 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged a notice bearing No.¸ÀPÁ¥ÁC/PÉÆÃG«/¦Dgï/246/2025-2026 dated 07.11.2025 issued by respondent No.2 under Section 313 of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Act, 2020 (henceforth referred to as 'BBMP Act' for short) 2. (i) The petitioner claims that he is the owner of property bearing No.378, ST Bed, Koramangala Extension Bengaluru. He states that he is the absolute owner of the aforesaid property. The petitioner further claims that the property is assessed to tax and that he is paying the property tax. He also claims that he obtained a sanctioned plan for construction and has constructed the building in accordance with the plan. (ii) He claims that a person named Mr.Benny Raju owner of Site No.376 ST Bed, Koramangala extension Bengaluru had amalgamated two adjoining sites and was constructing a building in violation of the sanctioned plan. He - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51440 WP No. 35747 of 2025 therefore, made repeated complaints to the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike to take action. He claims that as the ST bed layout is known to be a loose soil. The said Mr. Bennu Raju is constructing over his property in violation of the sanctioned plan, and there is 700% of deviation from the plan sanctioned. (iii) After persistent follow-up, the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike had issued a notice to Mr.Benny Raju under Section 248(1) of BBMP Act, on 09.12.2024 to stop further construction. Nonetheless, Mr. Benny Raju continued the construction which compelled the petitioner to file W.P No.12004/2025. This Court directed Mr. Benny Raju to stop the construction and if need be to take the help of the jurisdictional police. (iv) The petitioner claims that Mr.Benny Raju tried to approach him for an amicable settlement. However, when nothing worked, Mr.Benny Raju allegedly set up a person to lodge a complaint alleging an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. He also set up another person to lodge a complaint alleging that the petitioner has constructed his building in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51440 WP No. 35747 of 2025 violation of the sanctioned plan. He further claims that the respondents have sprung into action and issued the impugned notice calling upon the petitioner to furnish documents. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has constructed his building in accordance with the sanctioned plan and there is no violation. He therefore contends that the impugned notice, being one without application of mind, is liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the impugned notice is issued under Section 313 of BBMP Act, and it is for the petitioner to place on record the documents before respondent No.2, justifying the construction. He further submits that once the petitioner furnishes the documents, respondent No.2 will proceed in accordance with law. 5. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the petitioner is disposed off. The apprehension of the petitioner that the respondents may take precipitative action against the construction put up by him on his property is without any basis. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51440 WP No. 35747 of 2025 The petitioner is therefore directed to furnish the documents in response to the notice issued by respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 shall thereafter consider the documents produced by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 6. It is needless to mention that until the documents furnished by the petitioner are considered and an appropriate order is passed, the respondent No.2 shall not take any action against the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 is permitted to file memo of appearance within a period of 10 days. 8. In view of disposal of main petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and the same stand rejected. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23