Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 5084 (KAR)

SRI VIKRAM KUMAR SOLANKI v. GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY

WP/13685/2026 · 2026-04-28

M I Arun

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23659 WP No. 13685 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.13685 OF 2026 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. SRI VIKRAM KUMAR SOLANKI S/O MANOHAR LAL JAIN AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT 903, RANKA CHAMBERS 2ND FLOOR, M B T STREET NAGRATHPET MAIN ROAD BENGALURU NORTH - 560 002. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KEERTHI KRISHNA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS BBMP, CORPORATION CIRCLE, N R SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002 REP BY ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER. 2. BENGALURU CENTRAL CITY CORPORATION GANDHINAGARA ZONE ANNEXURE-3, BUILDING, GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY OFFICE PREMISES Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23659 WP No. 13685 of 2026 N R SQUARE, HUDSON CIRCLE BENGALURU - 560 002 REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 3. JOINT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU CENTRAL CITY CORPORATION GANDHINAGARA ZONE ANNEXURE-3, BUILDING, GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY OFFICE PREMISES N R SQUARE, HUDSON CIRCLE BENGALURU - 560 002. 4. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CHAMARAJPET WARD OFFICE AT NANJAMBA AGRAHARA CHAMRAJPET, BENGALURU-560 018. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT RESPONDENT NOS.2, 3 AND 4 TO FORTHWITH DE-SEAL THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY/BUILDING SEALED ON 24.04.2026 VIDE ANNEXURE-L AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THEM TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM ANY UNLAWFUL INTERFERENCE WITH THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY BEARING MUNICIPAL NO.96 (OLD NOS. 95 AND 96), PID NO.46-4-96, MEASURING EAST TO WEST 60 FEET AND NORTH TO SOUTH 108 FEET, IN ALL MEASURING 6480 SQ. FT., SITUATED AT 2ND MAIN ROAD, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU, WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE ERSTWHILE BBMP, NOW BENGALURU CENTRAL CITY CORPORATION, WARD NO.140, BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER AND CO-OWNERS, EXCEPT IN ACCORDANCE WITH DUE PROCESS OF LAW, ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23659 WP No. 13685 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER 1. The case of the petitioner is that a provisional order and a confirmation order was passed under the provisions of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 (for short 'the Act') by the respondents against the building being constructed by the petitioner on the ground that there are certain deviations from the sanctioned plan. 2. Immediately, the petitioner facilitated removal of the deviations and the respondents demolished that portion of the property which was not in conformity with the sanctioned plan. Thereafter, the petitioner continued the construction in accordance with the sanctioned plan. However, without issuing any notice, the respondent authorities entered the premises of the petitioner and sealed the same, which is contrary to law. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents though justifies the action of the respondents, candidly admits that after demolition of the construction which was put up contrary to the sanctioned plan, the property of the petitioner has been sealed without any further notice. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23659 WP No. 13685 of 2026 4. No person has a right to put up construction in violation of the sanctioned plan and building bye-laws. If any person puts up construction in violation of the same, the authorities concerned are duty bound to initiate appropriate action to have the same removed. However, the same has to be done as per the procedure established by law and it cannot be an arbitrary action as in the instant case. 5. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is disposed of. The respondents are directed to forthwith remove the seal of the building and permit the petitioner to construct the building in accordance with law. 6. It is needless to state that the respondents are at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings against the petitioner in the manner known to law if there are any deviations in the construction. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE VMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15