- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51441 WP No. 35715 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. 35715 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: MRS. SREEDEVI N RAO AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS W/O K NARAYANA RAO RESIDING AT NO.370, 8TH CROSS 8TH MAIN ROAD, ST BED LAYOUT KORAMANAGLA, 4TH BLOCK BANGALORE SOUTH BANGALORE-560034 …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) 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) NO:¸ÀPÁ¥ÁC/PÉÆÃG«/¦Dgï/245/2025-26 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:51441 WP No. 35715 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged a notice bearing No.¸ÀPÁ¥ÁC/PÉÆÃG«/¦Dgï/245/2025-2026 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 she is the owner of property bearing No.370, ST Bed, Koramangala Extension Bengaluru, which is a corner site. She states that a portion of the property is used for a tailor shop. The petitioner further claims that the property is assessed to tax and that she is paying the property tax. She also claims that she obtained a sanctioned plan for construction and has constructed the building in accordance with the plan. (ii) She 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. She therefore, made repeated complaints to the Bruhat Bengaluru - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51441 WP No. 35715 of 2025 Mahanagara Palike to take action. She claims that her house has developed cracks in certain places and that there is seepage of water, due to the high-rise building constructed by Mr. Benny Raju. (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, to stop the 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 her 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 is using her residential premises for non-residential purposes. She further claims that the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51441 WP No. 35715 of 2025 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 since the property of the petitioner measures 20 feet x 30 feet, she is entitled to utilise about 20% of the site area for commercial or professional activity. 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 and also that she is using a part of the premises for commercial activity. 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51441 WP No. 35715 of 2025 construction put up by her on her property is without any basis. 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.: 22