- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9751 WP No. 5239 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 5239 OF 2026 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. SRI MAHESH C S S/O. C.V. SRINIVASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 2. SMT. BHAGYA JYOTHI H N W/O. MAHESH C.S., AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.18, 2ND CROSS, COTTONPET, BENGALURU-560043. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA R., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NARASIMHARAJU.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER GALI ANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE SUB-DIVISION, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (WEST), BENGALURU. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9751 WP No. 5239 of 2026 CERTIORARI QUASHING THE INTIMATION LETTER DATED 09-02- 2026 BEARING NO. SA.KA.PA.A/GA.A UV./P.R./534/2025-26 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS WRIT 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.Pawan Kumar, learned counsel accepts notice for respondents. 2. The Petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a) To issue a writ of certiorari quashing the intimation letter dated 09.02.2026 bearing No. SA.KA.PA.A/GA.A.U.V/P.R/534/2025-26f issued by the 2nd Respondent as per Annexure-A. b) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the application dated 15.02.2026 filed by the petitioners for issuance of modify plan to the schedule property including third floor as per Annexure-H; c) Grant such other reliefs which deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The petitioners claim that they are the absolute owners of immovable residential property bearing No. 27, PID No.41-54-27, II Main Road, Byatarayanapura layout, Mysore Road, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9751 WP No. 5239 of 2026 Bengaluru-560026. The petitioners had applied for a license and sanction of plan which came to be granted by the respondents and in terms of thereof, the petitioner has put up construction. The respondents in the earlier proceedings had issued provisional order under Subsection (1) of Section 321, the same ended in a confirmation order under Subsection (3) of Section 321 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 [‘KMC Act’ for short]. Challenge made to the said order before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in appeal No.498/2018, also came to be dismissed. No action was taken by the respondents thereafter. Now a notice has been issued under Section 314B of BBMP Act stating that the violated portion of the property would be demolished. 4. The submission of Sri.Subramanya.R, learned counsel for Sri.Narasimharaju, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has also - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9751 WP No. 5239 of 2026 submitted a modified plan sanction for modification of building in terms of the applicable Building Bylaws availing the benefit of Subsection (7) of Section 230 of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2020. His submission is that if the said plan is considered by respondents, the excess construction is demarcated by the respondents, the petitioner would remove the excess construction within a period of 90 days of such demarcation by the GBA. 5. In view of the said submissions, I pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is partly allowed. ii. The operation in terms of the intimation letter dated 9.02.2026 at Annexure-A is kept under suspension. iii. Respondent-jurisdictional Additional Director of Town Planning of the BBMP is directed to consider the application for modification of the plan sanction submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law and pass necessary orders in relation thereto. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9751 WP No. 5239 of 2026 iv. On such sanction of plan, respondent No.2 along with jurisdictional ADTP are directed to cause inspection of the property of the petitioner and demarcate the excess construction which is required to be removed by providing a sketch in relation thereto with appropriate measurements. v. The petitioner is granted 90 days thereafter to remove the excess construction. vi. In the event of the said excess construction not being removed within the said period of 90 days indicated supra, the operation of Annexure-A would come back into operation, thereby enabling the respondent to take such action as necessary in accordance with law. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE LN List No.: 4 Sl No.: 1