- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32139 WP No. 18487 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 18487 OF 2026 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: SMT. SARITHA W/O SRI. JOSEPH, AGE ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 226/A, 6th A CROSS, 2nd MAIN ROAD, MARUTHINAGAR, YELAHANKA BENGALURU 560064 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJANNA C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY CORPORATION OFFICES, N.R SQUARE, J C ROAD, BENGALURU 560002 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BANGALORE NORTH CITY CORPORATION, YALAHANKA SUBDIVISION, Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32139 WP No. 18487 of 2026 YALAHANKA OLD TOWN, CMC ROAD, BANGALORE 560064 3. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR CITY PLANNING YALAHANKA REGION-2, MEI LAYOUT, HESARAGHATTA MAIN ROAD, BHAGALAGUNTE BENGLAURU 560073 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO IMPUGNED NOTICE BEARING SA. KAABEUNAPA ORDERING /YE.UPA.VI/PR-60/2026-27 DATED. 12/6/2026 FOR DEMOLITION OF DEVIATED PORTION OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE BEARING SITE NO.226/A, BBMP KATHA NO.627/3 DULY CONVERTED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSE AS PER THE CONVERSION THE DEPUTY ORDER DATED.8/5/1970 PASSED BY 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, 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 TO THE PROVISIONS OF BBMP ACT 2020 AT ANNEXURE-A. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32139 WP No. 18487 of 2026 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner, who owns a property measuring 600 Square Feet, is aggrieved by the order dated 12.06.2026 by the jurisdictional Assistant Executive Engineer [the second respondent]. The second respondent's order is after this Court's order in W.P.No.851/2026 which stands disposed of on 09.02.2026. This Court has extended an opportunity to the petitioner to apply for Sanctioned Plan and Building License observing thus: "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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32139 WP No. 18487 of 2026 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." The second respondent has observed that the petitioner has not responded though extended with an opportunity vide the notice dated 23.02.2026 to apply for a plan approval. Mr. Rajanna C, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is not served with the notice and that the property is not inspected. Mr. Pawan Kumar, a learned Standing counsel for the respondents, is heard for final disposal of the petition. Be this as it may, this Court is of the view that the petitioner, without waiting for another notice, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32139 WP No. 18487 of 2026 must submit all the drawings and necessary documents with the second respondent by 30.07.2026 without seeking further extension and that if the petitioner makes these submissions, the second respondent must consider the same in the light of this Court's observations as afore in W.P.No.851/2026. The disposal of this petition on the afore terms would enable complete adjudication without needless precipitation. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE RB