- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41851 WP No. 8848 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 8848 OF 2025 (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@gmail.com …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. DHIRENDRA V KUBAIR (PARTY IN PERSON)) AND: 1. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP) REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER NO.1, N.R. SQUARE, RANI KITTOOR CHENNAMMA CIRCLE, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560002 2. THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER, WEST BBMP SAMPIGE ROAD, OPP. MANTRI MALL BHASHYAM PARK, SHESHADRIPURAM BENGALURU-560020 Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41851 WP No. 8848 of 2025 3. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING BBMP SAMPIGE ROAD, OPP. MANTRI MALL BHASHYAM PARK, SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU-560020. 4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BBMP MALLESHWARAM SUB-DIVISION 11TH CROSS, EAST PARK ROAD MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU-560003. 5. MR. VINAY KRISHNA H.N. S/O LATE H.V. NANDAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS NO.81, 4TH MAIN ROAD MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560003 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4; SRI. SUBRAMANYA R., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO RESTRAIN THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4 FROM PROCEEDING AGAINST THE PETITIONERS NOS.1 AND 2S BUILDING: PROFESSOR V.G. KUBAIRS APARTMENT, 81/1, 4TH MAIN ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU- 560003 WHICH HAS BEEN STANDING IN ITS PRESENT FORM SINCE 2008 (THAT IS PRIOR TO 2013) TILL THE FINAL ADJUDICATION OF THE "AKRAMA-SAKRAMA" CASE BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41851 WP No. 8848 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioners have sought for an order to restrain the respondent Nos.1 to 4 from proceeding against their building till adjudication of the validity of Akrama-Sakrama scheme by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 2. The sum and substance of the case of the petitioners is that father of petitioner No.1 had purchased the property in the year 1970 and a building was put up thereon in terms of a plan sanctioned by the then Municipal Corporation bearing No.LPNW/206/71 dated 12.10.1971. The father of the petitioner No.1 had constructed additional residential units after obtaining a plan in the year 2007 as per LP No.TC(W)/SP/LP- 100/06-07 dated 15.03.2007. The petitioners contend that the building is in existence from the year 1971 and additional construction was put up in the year 2008. He submits that respondent No.5 had initiated proceedings alleging that there was a violation of the building plan sanctioned. The respondent No.4 had issued a notice dated 19.03.2025 informing the petitioners that building constructed would be inspected on 01.04.2025 at 12.00 noon and therefore, required the personal - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41851 WP No. 8848 of 2025 presence of the petitioners. The petitioners being aggrieved by the said notice, are before this Court. 3. The petitioner No.1 who has appeared in person submits that construction put up is in existence since the years 1971 and 2008 respectively and that the petitioners are entitled for regularization of the construction as per Akrama- Sakrama scheme rolled out by the State Government. He contends that the validity of the scheme is under consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court and therefore, until said issue is decided, the respondents cannot take law into their hands by visiting the property, making inspection and taking action under Section 248(1), (2) and (3) of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 (henceforth referred to as 'BBMP Act, 2020'). In support of his contention, he has relied upon the orders of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.12952/2020 (D.D. 01.12.2023) and W.P.No.19293/2024 (D.D. 29.01.2025). He submits that building constructed is already assessed to tax and that he is paying property tax. He therefore, submits that no precipitative action can be taken to bring down the construction put up on the ground that it violates the building plan. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41851 WP No. 8848 of 2025 4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.5 submits that the impugned notice is not justiciable as the petitioners are only called upon to be present to take measurement of the construction put up by them. He submits that there can be no restraint even by the Court against the respondents taking action in accordance with law. He further contends that the question whether the petitioners are entitled for the benefit of Akrama - Sakrama scheme would also be examined once the respondents measure the property and identify the extent of deviation. He therefore, contends that no hardship or injury would be caused to the petitioners, if the respondents take measurement of the construction put up and verify whether it is in accordance with the plan sanctioned and also verify whether it exceeds permissible limit allowed as per Akrama - Sakrama scheme. 5. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 reiterated the above submission and submitted that the notice is only preliminary step before taking action under Section 248 of the BBMP Act, 2020 and therefore, apprehension of the petitioners that construction put up by them would be brought down is ill-founded. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41851 WP No. 8848 of 2025 6. I have considered the submissions of the petitioner No.1/party-in-person as well as the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 and the learned counsel for respondent No.5. 7. The petitioners have challenged a notice dated 19.03.2025 issued by the respondent No.4 by which, the respondent No.4 informed the petitioners based on a complaint lodged by the respondent No.5 that the petitioners had put up an extra floor. It is in that context that the respondent No.4 informed the petitioners that the building would be inspected on 01.04.2025 and therefore, required the petitioners to be present at the time of inspection. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 and learned counsel for respondent No.5, this was not a notice under Section 321(2) of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 or 248(2) of the BBMP Act, 2020, but was a notice under Section 308 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 and Section 313 of BBMP Act, 2020. This notice is only for the limited purpose of measuring construction put up by the petitioners, following which, the respondents may consider taking appropriate action under Section 248 of the BBMP Act, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41851 WP No. 8848 of 2025 2020. Therefore, the petitioners cannot have any grievance over the respondents measuring the extent of construction put up by them. In the event, the respondents take any action under Section 248(1) to (3) of the BBMP Act, 2020, it is always open for the petitioners to approach the concerned Court or the appellate authority as provided in law. 8. The writ petition stands disposed off accordingly. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60