- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31835 WP No. 18433 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 18433 OF 2026 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: SRI. B. S. MOHAN KUMAR S/O. LATE B. SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 32, J.J.R. NAGAR ENTRANCE, MYSORE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 018. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER BENGALURU CENTRAL CITY CORPORATION, CORPORATION CIRCLE, N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 027. 2. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING RAYAPURAM WARD, WARD NO. 137, GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY, (BBMP), BENGALURU-560 018. Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31835 WP No. 18433 of 2026 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER RAYAPURAM WARD, WARD NO. 137, GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY, (BBMP), BENGALURU-560 018. 4. SMT. SHASHIKALA MURTHY W/O. KESHWAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 33, J.J.R. NAGAR ENTRANCE, MYSORE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 018. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.PAWAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. MALLIKARJUN N.K., ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER. OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 TO IMMEDIATELY TAKE STEPS TO STOP AND DEMOLISH THE ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION BEING CARRIED OUT OVER SCHEDULE B PROPERTY IN VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF THE BBMP/GBA ACT. BUILDING BYE-LAWS AND APPLICABLE PLANNING REGULATIONS; B) DIRECT RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ON REPRESENTATION/COMPLAINT DATED 26.05.2026 AS ANNEXURE - J AND TAKE LEGAL ACTION AGAINST RESPONDENT NO.4 AND ANY OTHER PERSONS INVOLVED IN THE ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION OVER SCHEDULE B PROPERTY. 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:31835 WP No. 18433 of 2026 ORAL ORDER The petitioner seeks directions to the Greater Bengaluru Authority and its officers [the first to third respondents] to act upon his complaint against the construction commenced by the owner of his neighboring property [the fourth respondent]. The petitioner relies upon his representation dated 26.05.2026 [Annexure-J], and the photographs of the construction now underway are as under: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31835 WP No. 18433 of 2026 2. This Court, on 22.06.2026, has called upon the Jurisdictional Assistant Executive Engineer to file a Report on the details of the plan if sanctioned in favour of the fourth respondent and the action taken if the construction by the fourth respondent is contrary to the sanctioned plan. This Court has referred to the photograph of the construction by the fourth respondent which reads as under. 3. In compliance with this Court's direction a Report is filed. The Report reads that the jurisdictional Assistant Executive Engineer [the third respondent] has visited the property and has drawn a mahazar and that upon noticing that the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31835 WP No. 18433 of 2026 construction by the fourth respondent is without a sanctioned plan, the Engineer has ensured that all further constructions are stopped. Sri.Chandrasekhar M., the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pawan Kumar, a learned standing counsel for the Greater Bengaluru Authority and its officers [the first to third respondents], and SriMallikarjun N.K., who is called upon to accept notice for the fourth respondent, are heard for the disposal of the petition. 4. Sri Pawan Kumar submits that it is noticed that the construction by the fourth respondent is without a sanctioned plan, and a notice as would be required under Section 243 of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024 [for short, the GBG Act’] will be issued within a week from today. Sri Mallikarjun N.K. submits that the fourth respondent will not take up any further construction without appropriate sanction/approval - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31835 WP No. 18433 of 2026 and subject to the orders that could be in the proceedings under Section 243 of the GBG Act and that this Court must also observe that the fourth respondent cannot be foreclosed of her right to complain against the construction by the petitioner. 5. This Court is of the view that the petition must be disposed of in the light of the submissions now made without prejudice to either the petitioner or to the fourth respondent in the event the concerned does not act upon the statement made before this Court for commencement of the proceedings under Section 243 of the GBG Act or on a complaint that could be filed against any construction by the petitioner. The petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SA List No.: 3 Sl No.: 9