- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28718 WP No. 15233 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 15233 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: SRI N ASHOK @ ASHOK N KSHIRASAGARA S/O LATE SRI. NARASINGHA RAO, AGED 69 YEARS, NO. 114, III MAIN ROAD, 13TH CROSS, MARGOSA ROAD, MALLESWARAM, BANGALORE-560 003. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S C VENKATESH., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER, N R SQUARE, BANGALORE- 560 002. 2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE TOWN PLANNING, WEST, BASHYAM PARK, SESHADRIPURAM, Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28718 WP No. 15233 of 2025 BANGALORE- 560 003. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BASHYAM PARK, SESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE- 560 003. 4. THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER (WEST), BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BASHYAM PARK, SESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE- 560 003. 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE MALLESWARAM DIVISION BANGALORE- 560 003. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VAIBHAV RAVI MALIMATH., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5; SRI. VIVEK B.R. ADVOCATE FOR R6) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED FINAL ORDER DATED 15.02.2025 IN APPEAL NO. 283/2024 PASSED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNX-A; ALLOW THE APPEAL NO. 283/2024 BEFORE THE R-1 AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE BEARING NO. ZC (W)/16/24 -25 ORDER DATED 06.01.2025 VIDE ANNX-M. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28718 WP No. 15233 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioner is the owner of a property that faces Margosa Road in Malleswaram. The width of the property along this road is only 13 feet. The petitioner is granted sanction for construction of a Stilt, Ground, First and Second floors with a terrace. The sital area, which is part of the sanctioned plan reads as under. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28718 WP No. 15233 of 2025 2. The proceedings under Section 248 of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 [for short, the 'BBMP Act'] are concluded on the premise that there is deviation on the north, east and southern side of the construction with the authorities observing that the petitioner must maintain a one meter wide open space setback along the entire length of the southern byoundary of the property. The petitioner is also unsuccessful in his statutory appeal. 3. This Court has called upon the authorities to file a report on inspection, and this report is filed. It is seen that this report also mentions that the petitioner had to maintain an open space of 1 metre along the entire length of the southern boundary. This Court, on 11.02.2026, has observed that the Chief Commissioner with the GBA as also others, must apply their mind to evolve a policy on permitting building on sites which are odd shaped, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28718 WP No. 15233 of 2025 wherein compliance with the setback Regulations would hardly leave any space for the owner to construct. This Report is not filed by the Chief Commissioner, but by the Joint Zonal Commissioner stating that he is filing the report because he is aware of the facts and circumstances in which the building plan is granted. 4. The Joint Zonal Commissioner has stated that [a] the sanction plans will not be required for properties which measure less than 50 square metres and because the petitioner's property measures 170 square metres notwithstanding its shape, the petitioner should have applied and has applied for sanction plan [b] the Government of Karnataka has vide Notification dated 05.01.2026 reduced the minimum setback for houses even further than what is contemplated under the building bye-laws [c] the deviations from the sanction plan upto 5% can be - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28718 WP No. 15233 of 2025 considered under byelaw No.6 and the applicable provisions. 5. Sri S.C. Venkatesh, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the fact that the proceedings have continued in the premise that the petitioner is required to maintain open space of 1 metre along the entire length of the southern boundary contrary to the sanction plan must be a reason for this Court's interference, and the learned counsel also submits that there is a dispute with the neighboring owner over the width of the passage which will impact the sital area that would be available to the petitioner. Sri Vaibhav Malimath, the learned counsel for the GBA and its officers, submits that this Court if persuaded may reserve liberty to the petitioner to apply for a revised modified plan based on the changes now brought into effect as also the regularization that would be permitted. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28718 WP No. 15233 of 2025 6. The circumstances as presented for consideration are examined. The petitioner has completed the construction and has all amenities extended. It cannot be disputed that the sanction is for a building upto the edge of the petitioner's property along the southern boundary. This is seen from the extracted part of the Plan. However, the entire proceedings under Section 248 of the BBMP Act has proceeded on the ground that the petitioner had to maintain an open space of 1 metre along the entire length on the southern boundary as well. This demonstrates to this Court's satisfaction that proceedings have begun and concluded on a factually incorrect premise. It is also shown to this Court’s satisfaction that the appellate authority has also not examined this aspect. Therefore, there is reason for interference. 7. The question for consideration is the terms upon which this petition must be disposed of. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28718 WP No. 15233 of 2025 This Court cannot, with the construction already being completed, permit an application for modification of the plan unless there is detailed hearing which is not necessary in the present proceedings because of the obvious error discussed above. However, if regularization upto 5% deviation is permissible, that should be provided for with the petitioner making an application calling upon the authorities to consider the same keeping in mind the petitioner's case that there is a civil dispute pending on the width of the common passage along the northern side of the property and also observing that if regularization is not permissible, the authorities must be at liberty to decide in accordance with law after due verification with liberty to the petitioner to pursue his statutory remedies if there is a cause. Hence the following; ORDER [A] The petition stands disposed of. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28718 WP No. 15233 of 2025 [B] The impugned Final Order dated 15.02.2025 in Appeal No.283/2024 by the first respondent [Annexure-A] is quashed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned with the Greater Bengaluru Authority with all the details. [C] If the petitioner files an application for regularization of the construction within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order with all the details, the concerned shall examine the same to take an expedited decision. The concerned shall examine the question of regularization not just on the extent of permissible deviation but also the actual sital area that would be available and the undisputed width of the common passage. [D] It is needless to observe that if the petitioner does not file an application or if - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28718 WP No. 15233 of 2025 the authorities are of the view that regularization is not permissible, it will be open to them to act as permissible in law without prejudice to the petitioner’s statutory remedy. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE NV