IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 35574 OF 2025 (LB-BMP)

BETWEEN:

SRI.K.S.RAJESH S/O. LATE K.G.SATHYANARAYANA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.195/35, 1^ST FLOOR, "VASAVI", 80 FEET ROAD, VBHBCSD, GIRINAGAR 4^TH PHASE, BSK III STAGE, BENGALURU-560085.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI.N.R.NAIK, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 001.

2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Digitally CUTTONPET SUB DIVISION, BBMP, signed by SUMA BENGALURU-560 002.

Location:

…RESPONDENTS HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (BY SRI.PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN NO.¸À.PÁ.C/PÁ.¥ÉÃ/¦Dgï/05/25-26 DATED 03.11.2025 WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-J.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has challenged a notice bearing No.s¸À.PÁ.C/PÁ.¥ÉÃ/¦Dgï/05/25-26 dated 03.11.2025 issued by the respondent No.2 under Section 313 of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 (henceforth referred to as 'the BBMP Act, 2020').

2. (i) The petitioner claims that he is the owner of the property bearing No.502/2, situated at Chikpet Chowk, Avenue Road Circle, Bengaluru, measuring 25 feet X 18 feet. He contends that he has constructed a building, which is assessed to property tax by the concerned authority and that he has been paying the property tax.

(ii) He claims that since the property measures about

450 square feet, there is no need to obtain sanction of a building plan. He contends that after the construction of the building was complete, a letter was addressed by the respondents to the Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited (for short 'BESCOM') authorities on 11.07.2025 to disconnect the power supply to the building constructed by the petitioner, which was challenged in WP No.28092/2025, where an interim order was granted. The petitioner claims that he has let out the building constructed to tenants, who are in possession.

(iii) The petitioner contends that when things stood thus, the respondent No.2 issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to produce documents in respect of the construction put up. He claims that he has already submitted all the documents when he filed WP No.28092/2025 and therefore, there is no need to furnish the documents again.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the petitioner is called upon by the impugned notice to furnish documents to justify the construction put up by him. He contends that this notice is not justiciable and it is for the petitioner to reply to the notice and furnish the documents.

4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

5. A perusal of the impugned notice shows that it is issued under Section 313 of the BBMP Act, 2020. It may be that the petitioner is not required to obtain a plan in respect of a site which measures 450 square feet. However, once the respondent No.2 issued the notice, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to justify the construction put up by him by producing relevant documents. He cannot rush to this Court challenging an innocuous notice issued by the respondent No.2.

6. In that view of the matter, no interference is warranted with the impugned notice. Hence, this petition is dismissed. The petitioner is granted two weeks time to furnish the documents pursuant to the impugned notice and the respondent No.2 shall after considering the documents that may be furnished by the petitioner, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner.

7. In view of dismissal of main petition, pending IAs, if any, do not survive for consideration and same stand rejected.

Sd/-

(R. NATARAJ)

JUDGE BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21