Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8096 (KAR)

MANJUNATH K v. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER

WP/36593/2025 · 2026-03-26

M I Arun

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17187 WP No. 36593 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 36593 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. MANJUNATH K. S/O LATE KESHAVMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT NO.1711, 14TH MAIN ROAD, 31ST CROSS, BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 070. 2. PRAVIN RAO U.B. S/O LATE PRABHAKAR RAO, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT NO.1701, 14TH MAIN ROAD, 31ST CROSS, BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 070. 3. I.R. RAVISH S/O L.S. RENUKA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO.1702, 14TH MAIN ROAD, 31ST CROSS, BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 070. 4. SHIVPRASAD S/O T. POMPAPATHY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.1700, 14TH MAIN ROAD, 31ST CROSS, BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 070. 5. VARUN MUNDHRA S/O VIJAYKUMAR MUNDHRA, Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17187 WP No. 36593 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT NO.1703, 14TH MAIN ROAD, 31ST CROSS, BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 070. 6. SUMANTH RAMKRISHNA S/O LATE H.P. RAMKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.1704, 14TH MAIN ROAD, 31ST CROSS, BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 070. 7. KARTHIK Y.K. S/O Y.N. KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.1713, 14TH MAIN ROAD, 31ST CROSS, BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 070. 8. K. SRINIVAS S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.1710, 14TH MAIN ROAD, 31ST CROSS, BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 070. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PARIKSHITH MALIYE KRISHNA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY, BENGALURU WEST CITY CORPORATION, 11TH CROSS, EAST PARK ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 028. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17187 WP No. 36593 of 2025 2. ZONAL COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, 36TH CROSS, 9TH MAIN ROAD, 4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 011. 3. MRS. SUSHMA GOWDA W/O SRI. PRAMOD KRISHNAPPA HAGADUR, NO.2475, 17TH MAIN ROAD, 25TH CROSS ROAD, BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 070. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. H.S. DWARAKANATH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. S.R. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 OR ALTERNATIVELY RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 13-10-2025 AND 06-11-2025 VIDE ANNEXURES - A AND B RESPECTIVELY AND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AT THE EARLIEST AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17187 WP No. 36593 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The writ petition is filed alleging that respondent No.3 has put up construction on the property which is the subject matter of the writ petition, in violation of the building bye-laws and the sanctioned plan. In spite of making representations to the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (for short, 'the BBMP') now, the Greater Bengaluru Authority (for short, 'the GBA'), no action has been initiated. Hence, the present writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the BBMP / GBA to initiate appropriate action against respondent No.3. 2. In the course of the proceedings, the officers of the BBMP / GBA have verified the construction and the learned counsel for the BBMP / GBA submits that there is a violation in the construction being put up by respondent No.3. 3. For the aforementioned reasons, the Writ Petition is hereby disposed of, with a direction to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17187 WP No. 36593 of 2025 respondent Nos.1 and 2 to initiate appropriate action against respondent No.3 in accordance with law. It is needless to state that respondent No.3 is always entitled to regularize any of the construction put up without obtaining the necessary sanctioned plan if the same is permissible in law. 4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall conclude the actions against respondent No.3 within a period of four (04) months from today. SD/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE CH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42