- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7818 WP No. 851 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 851 OF 2026 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: SMT. SARITHA W/O SRI. JOSEPH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NO.226/A 6TH 'A' CROSS, 2ND MAIN ROAD MARUTHINAGAR, YELAHANKA BENGALURU - 560 064. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJANNA C, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE CORPORATION OFFICES, N.R.SQUARE J.C.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 002. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE YELAHANKA SUB-DIVISION YELAHANKA OLD TOWN, CMC ROAD BENGALURU - 560 064. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BATHE GOWDA K.V, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH. (I) IMPUGNED NOTICE BEARING BEUNAPA/YEUPAVIBE/SA- 1/255/2025-26 Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7818 WP No. 851 of 2026 ORDERING FOR DULY DATED 22/12/2025 DEMOLITION OF DEVIATED PORTION OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE BEARING SITE NO.226/A, BBMP KATHA NO.627/3 CONVERTED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSE AS PER THE CONVERSION ORDER DATED 8/5/1970 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU VIDE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM NO.B.DIS.ALN.SR.4620 IN THE LAYOUT FORMED BY SRI.MARUTHI BADAVARA GRUHA NIRMANA SEVASAHAKARA SANGHA AT ANX-F, DIVISION NO.2, ALLOTMENT NO.3 SITUATED AT MARUTHINAGAR, YALAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, MEASURING EAST TO WEST-15 FEET AND NORTH TO SOUTH 40 FEET IN ALL MEASURING 600 SQ.FEET ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AS THE SAME IS ISSUED WITHOUT JURISDICTION IN OVER CONTRAVENTION TO THE ANNEXURE-A. EXERCISE OF POWER AND IN PROVISIONS OF BBMP ACT 2020 AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. Sri. Bathegowda K.V., learned counsel accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: (a) impugned notice bearing Beunapa/yeupaviBe/sa. for 1/255/2025-26 dated:22/12/2025 ordering demolition of deviated portion of residential house bearing Site No.226/A, BBMP katha No.627/3 duly - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7818 WP No. 851 of 2026 converted for residential purpose as per the conversion order dated:8/5/1970 passed by the Deputy commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru vide official Memorandum No.B.Dis.ALN.SR.4620 in the layout formed by Sri. Maruthi Badavara Gruha Nirmana sevasahakara sangha, at Annexure-F Division No.2, allotment No.3 situated at Maruthinagar, Yalahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring East to West-15 feet and North to South 40 feet in all measuring 600 sq.feet issued by the respondent No.2 as the same is issued without jurisdiction in over exercise of power and in contravention provisions of BBMP Act 2020 at to the Annexure-A. (b) Issue such other order, direction or writ as may be necessary in the interest of justice and equity . 3. The petitioner claims to be the owner of house property bearing Site No.226/A, BBMP Khata No.627/3, measuring East to West 15 feet and North to South 40 feet, totally measuring 600 square feet. The petitioner had applied for a plan sanction, which came to be rejected on the ground that a plan sanction would not be provided for properties measuring less than 600 square feet. Though the plan sanction was rejected by the respondents, the petitioner has gone ahead and put up construction on the said property and in that background, the respondents had issued notices under Subsection (1) of Section 248 of the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagar Palike 2020 (for short, "BBMP Act, 2020") and thereafter, a confirmatory order - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7818 WP No. 851 of 2026 under Subsection (3) of Section 248 of the BBMP Act, 2020. It is challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. This Court in the case of Sri. Nagaraj Vs. The Chief Commissioner, BBMP and others in W.P.No.7204/2021 has held that respondents' authorities cannot reject an application for plan sanction merely because the property is less than 600 square feet, which results in the owners of the property putting up construction without obtaining a plan sanction and has directed the BPMP to consider the issuance of land sanction even for properties less than 600 square feet by following the applicable building bye-laws. The rejection in the present matter having been made on 12.06.2020, that is, prior to the said order passed by this Court, I am of the considered opinion that an opportunity would have to be granted to the petitioner to once again apply for necessary plan sanction to the respondent authorities in terms of the applicable building bye-laws and the construction which has been put up more so in terms of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7818 WP No. 851 of 2026 Sub Section (7) of Section 230 of Greater Bengaluru Authority Act,2024. 5. The respondent authorities could inspect the said property to ascertain if the same has been put up in accordance with the building bye-laws. If the same is so done, then the building can be saved. If the construction is not as per the applicable building bye-laws, the respondents would have to mark out the area which is in excess of the permissible construction and/or in violation of the building bye-laws, providing an opportunity for the petitioner to remove that excess construction, which shall be done within a period of 60 days from such demarcation made by the respondents. In the event of the excess construction being removed by the petitioner, the respondents could sanction the plan, thereby regularising the construction which has been put up by the petitioner. 6. Needless to say, if there is no violation, then there would be no requirement of demarcation to be made and a plan could be sanctioned as is. In the event of there being a - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7818 WP No. 851 of 2026 violation and a demarcation being made by the respondents and not removed by the petitioner within a period of 60 days, as indicated supra, the respondents would be free to take such action as is permissible in accordance with law. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE GJM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5