IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

WRIT PETITION NO. 7931 OF 2025 (LB-BMP)

BETWEEN:

MR. RAJENDRA KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

SON OF R.S. KRISHNA RAO

RESIDING AT NO.993, 23^RD MAIN ROAD

4^TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR

BANGALORE - 560 041.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. B.R. VISWANATH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE COMMISSIONER,

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,

N R SQUARE,

BENGALURU 560002.

Digitally signed by SACHIN Location:

2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

HIGH COURT BBMP, WARD NO.168

OF

KARNATAKA JAYANAGAR,

BANGALORE 560041.

3. MR. VINOD KUMAR N NO.977, 23^RD MAIN ROAD

4^TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR

BANGALORE 560 041.

4. MRS. VARALAKSHMI M V

W/O VINOD KUMAR N

NO.977, 23^RD MAIN ROAD

4^TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE -560 041 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VAIBHAV RAVI MALIMATH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2;

SRI. AKKI MANJUNATH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 TO INITIATE STEPS TO IMMEDIATELY STOP THE ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION OF RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4 AND TO DEMOLISH THE ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN CARRIED OUT AT THE PROPERTY OF RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 IN VIOLATION OF THE SANCTIONED PLAN AND ETC.

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 sought for a direction to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to initiate steps to demolish the illegal construction put up by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 in their property bearing No.977, 23^rd Main Road, 4^th 'T' block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru, and not to regularize the construction put up by them and not to assess the property to tax.

2. The respondent Nos.3 and 4 are the neighbours of the petitioner who purportedly have put up some construction in their property, allegedly in violation of the building plan sanctioned by the respondent Nos.1 and 2. It is the claim of the petitioner that despite several representations to the respondent Nos.1 and 2, they have not taken any action. It is contended that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have issued two notices to the respondent Nos.3 and 4 out of which, one is under Section 313 of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 (for short, 'the BBMP Act') but have not taken any action thereafter.

3. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that necessary action would be taken against respondent Nos.3 and 4 after they furnish the documents pursuant to the notice issued under Section 313 of the BBMP Act.

4. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 submitted that the construction put up by them is complete in all respects and that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 are residing there. He also contends that the construction is in accordance with the sanctioned plan.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4.

6. There is no dispute that the petitioner is the neighbour of the respondent Nos.3 and 4. There is also no dispute that respondent Nos.3 and 4 have constructed a building in their property. While the respondent Nos.3 and 4 claim that the construction is in accordance with the sanctioned plan, the petitioner contends to the contrary. The petitioner had filed representations before the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to take action against the construction put up by the respondent Nos.3 and 4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 having initiated proceedings by calling upon the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to produce documents, should not have kept quiet but must have followed it up by inspecting the property of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 and if there was any deviation, to take necessary proceedings as provided under Section 243 of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024.

7. In that view of the matter, this writ petition stands disposed off on the fol