- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2222 WP No. 752 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 752 OF 2026 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. MR. MUNEER AHMED AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O LATE GAIBAN SAB, 2. MR. TAHSEEN BANU AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, W/O MR. MUNEER AHMED BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO. 5, 'A' BLOCK, MUNESHWARA STEP DOWN, MATTADAHALLI, R.T. NAGAR POST, BENGALURU - 560 032. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. HUSSAIN MUEEN FAROOQ, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, 5TH MAIN ROAD, KUMARAPARK WEST, GUTTAHALLI, BENGALURU -560 020 2. THE COMMISSIONER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP) NO. 5, 3RD FLOOR, ANNEX BUILDING NO. 3, Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2222 WP No. 752 of 2026 OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HUDSON CIRCLE, (OPP. LIC BUILDING, NEAR TOWN HALL) BENGALURU - 560 002. 3. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, NO. 6, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 052. 4. THE SUB REGISTRAR, NO. 122/2, 3RD FLOOR, MONARCH CHAMBERS, NEAR SREE BALAJI ART GALLERY, SHIVAJI NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 001, KARNATAKA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BOPPANNA BELIYAPPA, AGA FOR R3 AND R4; SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-CALLING FOR RECORDS MAY KINDLY BE PLEASED TO GRANT FOLLOWING WRITS, A) WRIT OF MANADAMUS COMMANDING THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO DEMOLISH THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE OF THE PETITIONERS SITUATED AT VIDYASAGARA (SARAIPALYA), THANISANDRA VILLAGE, KRISHNARAJAPURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, NOW THIS PROPERTY COMES UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, (BBMP) LIMITS, WARD NO.06, BANGALORE AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2222 WP No. 752 of 2026 ORAL ORDER 1. Petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: (a) Writ of Manadamus commanding the respondents not to demolish the residential structure of the petitioners situated at Vidyasagara (Saraipalya), Thanisandra Village, Krishnarajapuram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, now this property comes under the jurisdiction of Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, (BBMP) limits, Ward No.06, Bangalore, (b) Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents not to cause any sort of interference into the peaceful life, possessions and property of the petitioner situated at Vidyasagara (Saraipalya), Thanisandra Village, Krishnarajapuram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, Now this property comes under the jurisdiction of Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, (BBMP) limits, Ward No.06, Bangalore, Measuring East to West: 50 Feet, North to South: 20 Feet, in all measuring 1000 Sq.ft. (c) Writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to provide the compensation in favour of the petitioners for the damages caused the respondents as per the directions of the Hon'ble supreme court judgements. (d) Further Pass any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case including awards of cost of this proceedings. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the petitioners being the owner of Site No.15 old Khata No.342/A, new BBMP Khata No.2410A/15, old BBMP Khata No.118/A, BBMP E-Khata PID No.7007620382 situated at Vidyasagara (Saraipalya), Thanisandra Village, Krishnarajauram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2222 WP No. 752 of 2026 3. The respondents have sought to demolish the construction, which has been put up thereon without issuance of any notice. On enquiry with the learned counsel for the petitioners, if there is any plan sanction which is available with the petitioners, either obtained by the petitioners and/or the predecessors of the petitioners, he submits that there is no plan sanction which is available. But however, an application for plan sanction would be filed given three weeks' time, i.e., on or before 04.02.2026. 4. The petitioners' property having been assessed to tax and a Khata having been issued, I am of the considered opinion that the respondents could not have proceeded to try and demolish the property without issuance of necessary notices. Be that as it may, even if a notice were to be issued, the petitioners not having a plan sanction, the petitioners would not have any defense thereto. The petitioners now having come forward to submit a plan sanction in accordance with the applicable building bye-laws, I am of the considered opinion that an opportunity could be granted to the petitioners to try and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2222 WP No. 752 of 2026 save their property by regularising the construction put up by obtaining a plan sanction as per the applicable bye- laws. 5. In that view of the matter, once the application for plan sanction is submitted by the petitioners in the online manner, the respondents are directed to consider the same in accordance with the building bye-laws after inspecting the property and ascertaining if the construction has been put up as per the building bye-laws in regard to which the plan sanction has been submitted. 6. In the event of the construction not being as per the building bye-laws/application for plan sanction, the respondents are directed to mark out the area which is in violation so as to enable the petitioners to remove that violation, for which the petitioners are to be given 60 days' time. If the violation is removed, respondents are directed to consider the application submitted by the petitioners and sanction the same so as to regularise the construction of the petitioners. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2222 WP No. 752 of 2026 7. In the event of the violation not being removed, respondents would be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 243 of the Greater Bangalore Authority Act, 2024 (for short, "GB Act"). In that view of the matter, I pass the following: ORDER i) Writ petition is disposed of. ii) Respondents are restrained from demolishing any part of the construction of the petitioners in terms of the above observations and directions. In the event of the petitioner filing an application for plan sanction by 04.02.2026, the same is directed to be considered by respondents in accordance with law. iii) In the event of an application not being filed for plan sanction by 04.02.2026, the respondents would be at liberty to take such action as available under Section 243 of the GB Act. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE GJM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 12