- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21109 WP No. 8707 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 8707 OF 2026 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: SMT. DEEPA S. JAYARAM W/O MAHESH S.V. AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT NO.2121, SHOBHA TULIP, 24TH MAIN ROAD, J.P.NAGAR 6TH PHASE, BENGALURU - 560 078. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JAGADEESH D.C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY, CENTRAL OFFICES, N.R. SQAURE, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE ASST. DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH), BBMP COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, 9TH CROSS ROAD, 9TH MAIN ROAD, 2ND BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 011. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21109 WP No. 8707 of 2026 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27.05.2024 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07.02.26 PASSED IN APPEA NO.75/2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-F BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1, AS THE SAME ARE ILLEGAL AND CANNOT BE SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYE OF LAW. 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 ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged the impugned order passed by respondent No.1, whereby the appeal of the petitioner challenging the action initiated by the Greater Bengaluru Authority (for short, 'the GBA'), concluding that the petitioner has put up a construction in violation of the sanctioned plan, has been dismissed. 2. The case of the petitioner is that she has put up construction in accordance with the sanctioned plan and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21109 WP No. 8707 of 2026 the authorities concerned, without properly measuring the same, have wrongly furnished the information to respondent No.1, based on which the impugned order has been passed. It is also submitted that opportunity of hearing was not granted to the petitioner by respondent No.1 while passing the impugned order. 3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, upon instructions, submits that, with due notice, the property of the petitioner has been measured by the authorities concerned and they have found that the petitioner has put up construction in violation of the building bye-laws and the sanctioned plan. He further submits that the petitioner failed to co-operate at the time of measurement. He also submits that an opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner; however, in spite of it, she has not appeared before respondent No.1, and based on the pleadings and the documents produced, the impugned order has been passed. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21109 WP No. 8707 of 2026 4. No person has a right to put up construction in violation of the sanctioned plan. It is essential that every person follows the law for the well-being of fellow human beings in the society. Further, this Court cannot examine disputed questions of fact in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the instant case, the disputed question of fact is whether the petitioner has been duly served with notice in respect of the measurement of her building and the hearing before respondent No.1. It is the case of the petitioner that she has not been served with notice, whereas it is the case of the respondents that she has been duly served with the same. However, the pleadings also reveal that the notice was duly pasted on the property, which fact has been admitted by the petitioner. Another disputed question of fact is whether the petitioner has put up construction in violation of the sanctioned plan or otherwise. 5. Under the circumstances, what becomes important is that, if the petitioner has put up construction - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21109 WP No. 8707 of 2026 in violation of the sanctioned plan, the same is liable to be demolished. 6. Under the said circumstances, in my opinion, interest of justice would be served, if a date is fixed for inspection of the property and an order be passed directing the authorities to measure the property on that date, and if any construction is put up in violation of the sanctioned plan, the same shall be demolished. Hence, the following: ORDER i. The respondents shall inspect the property of the petitioner on 22.06.2026 at 11.00 a.m., without further notice to the petitioner. ii. The petitioner is given the liberty to be present at the time of inspection. iii. Any construction found to be in violation of the sanctioned plan shall be demolished after due measurement. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21109 WP No. 8707 of 2026 iv. Liberty is also granted to the petitioner to make an application seeking modification of the sanctioned plan, if the same is permissible under law and if such an application is made, the respondents shall consider the same in accordance with law. v. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE CH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7