- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43816 WP No. 3264 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 3264 OF 2017 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: SRI. V.G. IYER S/O. LATE GANAPATHY IYER, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT NO.43, PANDURANGA NAGAR, OPPOSITE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 076. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MURALIDHAR H.M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 2. SARVOTHAM AGE: 40 ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING (BOMMANAHALLI) OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, BBMP BOMMANAHALLI, BENGALURU-560081. 3. M/S CLEAR FOODS FACTORY KHATA NO.577/435/1/435/339 SY NO.199 TO 203, BILEKAHALLI, DORAISWAMY PALYA, BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 076 REPRESENTED BY MR. J. VIJAYA REDDY DIRECTOR OF M/S SJR ENTERPRISES PVT LTD., Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43816 WP No. 3264 of 2017 4. M/S. PHOENIX ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS AND CONSULTANTS, NO. 641, 46TH CROSS, NEAR BHASHYAM CIRCLE, 5TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010. REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRI. K.B.MONESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2; VIDE ORDER DATED 06.04.2023, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT NO.AEE/ASD/75/2015-16 DATED 26.11.2015 AT ANNEXURE-L IN SO FAR AS THE OPINION/ORDER THAT THE CONSTRUCTION IN PROGRESS ON THE PROPERTY BEARING SY. NO.199-203, 2ND CROSS ROAD, BILEKAHALI WARD NO.187, BENGALURU PUT BY THE 3RD AND 4TH RESPONDENTS IS AS PER THE SETBACK RULES AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged an endorsement bearing No.¸À.PÁ.C/C.G.«/75/2015-16 dated 26.11.2015 in so far as it relates to the opinion of respondent No.1 that the construction put up by respondent No.3 is in accordance with the sanctioned - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43816 WP No. 3264 of 2017 plan. He has also sought for a direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to initiate action under Section 321 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (henceforth referred to as 'KMC Act, 1976' for short). Further he has sought for a direction to the respondents to put up a compound along side the storm water drain, which according to the petitioner, is damaged by respondent Nos.3 and 4 while putting up construction. 2. (i) The petitioner contends that he is residing at No.43, Panduranganagar, opposite to the Indian institute of Management, Bannerghatta road, Bengaluru, which is a gated community. Respondent No.3 has taken up construction of a commercial complex on land bearing Khatha No.577/435/1/435/339 and Sy.No.199 and 203 of Bilekahalli, Doraiswamy Palya, Bannerghatta road, Bengaluru. (ii) Respondent No.2 had sanctioned a building plan in favour of respondent No.3. The petitioner alleges that respondent No.3 had violated the sanctioned plan, set back norms as well as bye-laws. He claims that in view of the deviation, the compound laid alongside the storm water drainage had partially collapsed. The Panduranga Nagar - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43816 WP No. 3264 of 2017 Residents Welfare Association (Regd.) had filed representations requesting respondent No.3 to construct the compound wall that had collapsed. However, respondent No.3 did not heed to the request of the association. He also contends that respondent No.3 is using unscientific method to blast the rock to lay a basement, though there was no sanction for construction of basement. (iii) The petitioner contends that though respondent Nos.1 and 2 were bound in law to verify whether the construction put up by respondent No.3 is in accordance with the sanctioned plan or not failed in discharging their duties. The petitioner being aggrieved by the failure on the part of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in discharging their duty approached this Court in W.P.No.2459/2015. This Court after hearing the parties allowed the writ petition and directed respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider the representation of the petitioner. However, respondents did not consider the representation and did not initiate any action. Later petitioner caused a notice dated 24.06.2015 despite which the respondents failed to take any action. On 06.07.2015 the Assistant Director of Town Planning, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43816 WP No. 3264 of 2017 Bommanahalli addressed a letter to the Assistant Executive Engineer, Arakere Sub-Division, Bengaluru requesting him to take action as directed in W.P.No.2459/2015. A copy of this letter was forwarded to the Joint director, Town Planning but neither the Assistant Executive Engineer nor the Joint Director, Town Planning took any action which forced the petitioner to file CCC No.1287/2015. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 caused a notice dated 09.11.2015 under Section 308 of KMC Act, 1976 calling upon respondent No.3 to rebuild the compound damaged by them and to furnish a copy of the construction plan, commencement certificate, Khatha and tax paid receipts etc., Thereafter, respondent Nos.1 and 2 issued a notice dated 13.11.2015 to respondent Nos.3 and 4 informing them that the compound of the layout of the petitioner was demolished and that the same should be reconstructed. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 then issued the impugned endorsement dated 26.11.2015 stating that the construction undertaken by respondent Nos.3 and 4 is according to the sanctioned plan. The petitioner contends that construction is not in accordance with sanctioned plan and the bye-laws and respondent Nos.3 and 4 had not raised the compound as directed by respondent Nos.1 and 2. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43816 WP No. 3264 of 2017 The petitioner is therefore before this Court seeking for the aforementioned reliefs. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner though claimed that the construction put up by respondent No.3 is not in accordance with the sanctioned plan, did not bring to the notice of this Court any violation. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 also did not indicate that the construction put up by respondent No.3 is in violation of the sanctioned plan. Be that as it may, a perusal of the impugned endorsement shows that when the writ petition was filed, the construction was at the initial stage and respondent Nos.1 and 2 after inspection of the property found that there was no violation. 5. It is now stated at the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner and others have put up a compound on their own cost. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it is respondent No.3 who has to recompense the petitioner and the Panduranganagar Residents' Welfare Association towards the cost of the construction of compound. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43816 WP No. 3264 of 2017 If there are no violations, the reliefs sought for by the petitioner for a direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to take action for the alleged violation of the sanctioned plan, does not survive. 6. In so far as the relief claiming a sum of Rs.75,000/- from respondent No.3 towards construction cost of compound wall, it is a private dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.3 which he has to work out before the Civil Court and certainly not in this writ petition. The respondent Nos. 1and 2 are in no way responsible for respondent No.3 demolishing the compound. 7. Under the circumstances, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. If the petitioner is interested, he may pursue any civil remedy against respondent Nos.3 and 4 in accordance with law. 8. It is open to the petitioner to submit a separate representation before respondent Nos.1 and 2 bringing to their notice any violation in the construction put up by respondent - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43816 WP No. 3264 of 2017 No.3. If such representation is submitted, respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall consider the same and take action in accordance with law. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1