- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29729 WP No. 13907 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 13907 OF 2026 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. SRI PURUSHOTHAM S S/O LATE K.M. SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 2. SMT.SHANTHAMMA, W/O LATE K.M. SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT 318 NEAR GOVERNMENT SCHOOL, OPPOSITE TO SAPTHAGIRI NETWORK, KOODLU MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU 560 068 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NAVEEN J N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 002 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, GBA, WARD NO.32, KOODLU, BENGALURU SOUTH, BENGALURU 560 068 3. SRI NARAYANAPPA, S/O MUNIYAPPA, Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29729 WP No. 13907 of 2026 AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.319, NARAYANAPPA BUILDING, NEAR GOVERNMENT SCHOOL, OPPOSITE TO SAPTHAGIRI, NETWORK, KOODLU MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560068. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN REDDY K S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI. K.R. SATISH, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST RESPONDENT NO.3 FOR HIS ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.4.2026 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-C TO THE WRIT PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioners complain that the third respondent [the owner of an adjoining property] is undertaking construction without even a sanctioned plan, and the second respondent, the jurisdictional - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29729 WP No. 13907 of 2026 Assistant Executive Engineer, is not taking any action despite representations. The petitioners have sought for mandamus to the second respondent to act against the construction by the third respondent. 2. This Court, on 04.06.2026, has permitted Sri K.S. Mallikarjun Reddy, the learned counsel for the first and the second respondents, to take instructions on whether the third respondent has the benefit of a sanctioned plan observing that if action is not taken by the second respondent despite the third respondent proceeding with the construction without a plan, that could entail levying costs on the second respondent. On 08.06.2026, this Court has granted the interim order directing the third respondent to stop all constructions forthwith. This Court has directed the second respondent to ensure that the property is sealed to prevent construction contrary to the plan. 3. This Court vide this order dated 08.06.2026 has further observed that the second - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29729 WP No. 13907 of 2026 respondent shall avail the assistance of the jurisdictional Police. This Court's order dated 08.06.2026 in these regards is with Sri Mallikarjun Reddy stating that the third respondent has not produced a copy of the sanctioned plan and Sri Naveen J.N, the learned counsel for the petitioners, placing on record a set of photographs to show that the third respondent is continuing with the construction. This Court has also reserved liberty to the third respondent to place on record a copy of the sanctioned plan and the details of the construction to demonstrate that the construction is in accordance with the plan. 4. The second respondent has filed an affidavit with the office on 16.06.2026 stating that on 09.06.2026, he has ensured that the third respondents' property is sealed and a mahazar is also drawn. These photographs read as under: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29729 WP No. 13907 of 2026 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29729 WP No. 13907 of 2026 Sri K. R. Satish, the learned counsel for the third respondent, submits that he will have to secure instructions on the plan that may be for construction by the third respondent. 5. This Court, in the circumstances, is persuaded to dispose of this petition observing that the construction must be under seal calling upon the second respondent to act under Section 243 of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024 [for short the 'Act'] to verify the construction being in accordance with the plan, if any, and the action that must be if the construction is either without the sanctioned plan or contrary to the sanctioned plan. If the second respondent ensures the procedure as contemplated under Section 243 of the Act [which involves a joint inspection, a provisional order, an opportunity of hearing and a confirmation order], the third respondent's grievance would be redressed. The third respondent could also produce a copy of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29729 WP No. 13907 of 2026 sanctioned plan. Thus observing, the petition stands disposed of directing the second respondent to file into this Court an affidavit in the next two[2] months on the status of the proceedings under Section 243 of the Act. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE NV List No.: 3 Sl No.: 16