IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 55514 OF 2018 (LB-BMP)

BETWEEN:

MR. SUDARSHAN SHASTRY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O MR. ANIL KUMAR SHASTRY PRESENTLY R/AT NO.16 GOD'S GIFT APARTMENT, OWNERS COURT LAYOUT WEST, KASAVANAHALLI, WARD NO.150 BENGALURU-560 037 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NARAYANA K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N R SQUARE, MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU-560 002.

(REPTD. BY ITS COMMISSIONER)

Digitally signed by SUMA 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, Location: MARATHAHALLI SUB DIVISION HIGH MAHADEVAPURA, COURT OF KARNATAKA BBMP, MAHADEVAPURA BENGALURU-560 037 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H. DEVENDRAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH AND DECLARE THE NOTICES DATED 25.09.2018 BEARING REF. NO.BBMP/SKA/MUV/W150/PR/109/2018-19 (ANNEXURE-E) AND THE NOTICES DATED 15.11.2018 BEARING REF.

NOS.SaKaNiAa(MUV)PO/04/2018-19 AND REF. SaKaNiAa(MUV)PO/2018-19 (ANNEXURE-H), ISSUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT AS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND UNSUSTAINABLE UNDER LAW.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has challenged notice bearing No.¸ÀA:©©JA¦/¸ÀPÁC/ªÀiÁG«/ªÁ150/¦.Dgï./109/2018-19 dated 25.09.2018 issued by the respondent No.2 under Section 308 of the of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (for short, 'the KMC Act') and the notice bearing No.¸ÀASÉå: ¸À.PÁ.¤.C(ªÀiÁG«)¦.N/04/2018-19 dated 15.11.2018 issued by the respondent No.2 under Section 321(1) of the KMC Act.

2. The petitioner claims that he is the owner of the site bearing No.16 formed out of land in Sy. No.25/1 situate at Kasavanahalli village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. He applied for sanction of the building plan, and the concerned Planning Officer, after examining the documents furnished, granted sanction on 23.11.2013 for construction of a residential building. The petitioner claims that the construction was put up in accordance with the sanctioned plan, and that the municipal corporation thereafter assessed the building to tax.

3. He claims that he received a notice dated

25.09.2018 under Section 308 of the KMC Act, calling upon him to produce documents in support of the construction put up. The petitioner submitted his reply on 28.09.2018, pursuant to which respondent No.2 issued another letter dated 15.11.2018 directing him to furnish the requisite documents, failing which action would be initiated. On 15.11.2018 itself, respondent No.2 issued two notices under Sections 321(1) and 321(2) of the KMC Act alleging that the petitioner had put up construction unauthorisedly and in violation of the sanctioned plan.

4. The petitioner therefore, being aggrieved by the said notices, is before this Court.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above contentions and submits that the construction put up by the petitioner is in accordance with law and that the impugned notices are issued in haste without awaiting the petitioner to furnish the documents. He further submits that while the notice dated 25.09.2018 called upon the petitioner to furnish documents, the impugned notices dated 15.11.2018 were issued thereafter without affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. He therefore contends that the impugned notices are liable to be set aside.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the writ petition is premature, as no action is initiated under Section 321(3) of the KMC Act. He submits that, even before any action could be taken, the petitioner approached this Court and secured an interim order staying the notices. He further contends that the construction put up by the petitioner is not in accordance with the sanctioned plan, as indicated in the notices issued, and therefore prays that liberty be reserved