- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34065 WP No. 26119 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.26119 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. N.C. MAHADEVAPPA, S/O. LATE SRI. N.B.CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O. NO.546, F BLOCK, 14TH MAIN, BEHIND SBI BANK, SAHAKARANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 092. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHETHAN B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER, BBMP, CORPORATION BUILDING, N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE-560 002. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BBMP, KODIGEHALLI SUB-DIVISION, SAHAKARANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 092. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34065 WP No. 26119 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 12.02.2025 PASSED IN APPEAL NO.1197/2019 (CH-2) BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE AS PER ANNEXURE-A, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER 1. An order under Section 321(3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 has been passed by respondent No.2 which is dated 16.08.2019 (vide Annexure-B to the writ petition) wherein it has been concluded that the petitioner has constructed a building in violation of the sanctioned plan and the deviations have been directed to be removed/demolished. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred Appeal No.1197/2019 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and the same has been dismissed on 12.02.2025 (vide Annexure-A to the writ petition). Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed wherein a prayer is made to set aside the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34065 WP No. 26119 of 2025 impugned orders passed by respondent No.2 and also by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. 2. In the course of the arguments, the only ground urged by the petitioner is that he has been directed to remove the deviations. The impugned orders do not specify the exact percentage of deviation and what needs to be demolished. For the said reason, it is contended that the impugned orders are vague and are liable to be set aside. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that though the impugned orders do not specify the percentage of deviation or the precise location of deviation, the proceedings recorded do indicate the same. He further submits that there is no dispute that the petitioner was given a fair opportunity of hearing and it was indicated to him the exact area of deviation and he was indicated the construction which is in violation of the sanctioned plan and there is no vagueness in the same. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34065 WP No. 26119 of 2025 However, he fairly submits that as the impugned orders do not mention the exact extent of deviation. Hence, a fresh inspection will be conducted and it will be indicated to the petitioner as to what extent of construction that needs to be removed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to dispute the fact that the construction put up is in violation of the sanctioned plan. Under the said circumstances, interest of justice would be met if a joint inspection is conducted on the property and the respondents are directed to intimate to the petitioner the exact extent of deviation, subject to however reserving the right of the petitioner to challenge the same in the manner known to law, if he is so advised. 5. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) Respondent No.2 shall conduct a joint inspection of the property which is the subject matter of the writ petition along with the petitioner herein after due notice to him and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34065 WP No. 26119 of 2025 indicate what is the exact extent of deviation and only thereafter take action against the petitioner to have the same removed/demolished; (ii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the joint inspection of the property and also produce a copy of the sanctioned plan to the respondents; (iii) The petitioner is given liberty to challenge the finding of respondent No.2, if he is so aggrieved, in the manner known to law; (iv) The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE hkh. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13