SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 442607

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
SRI. B S NESARA – Appellant
Versus
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE – Respondent
RP 270/2025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

REVIEW PETITION NO. 270 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

SRI. B S NESARA

S/O. SRI. D.S. SHIVARAMA,

AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

R/AT. NO.194, MANDYA HOUSE,

7TH MAIN ROAD,

JAYANAGAR 4TH BLOCK,

NEAR JAYANAGAR POLICE STATION,

BENGALURU 560011

REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER.

SRI. GANGADHAR. S

S/O. SONAPPA K,

AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

Digitally

signed by R/AT.NO.91/3,1ST FLOOR, 1ST MAIN

VANAMALA

NETHARI ROAD, 2ND BLOCK,

N

Location: TYAGARAJ NAGAR,

HIGH

NEAR KEB QUARTERS,

COURT OF

KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560028.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. P.N. MANMOHAN A/W

SRI. NITYANAND M BHAT, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R SQUARE, CORPORATION CIRCLE, BENGALURU 560002 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

2. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH)

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, 9th CROSS, 9th MAIN ROAD, 2nd BLOCK, JAYANAGARA, BENGALURU 560011.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.PAWAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE)

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER

47 RULE 1 R/W SEC. 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO RECALL AND REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 29.11.2024 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.5146/2024 (LB-BMP) PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT AND CONSEQUENTLY PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO USE AND OCCUPY THE CONSTRUCTED PORTION AS PER PLANT SANCTION.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

ORAL ORDER

This Court has disposed of the petition in W.P.No.5146/2024 [LB-BMP] while allowing another petition in W.P.No.21686/2023 [LB-BMP] on 29.11.2024. This Court in so disposing of these petitions has called upon the Joint Director of Town Planning, BBMP South Zone to consider the petitioner's application under Section 240(8) of the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 [for short, 'the BBMP Act'] while stipulating, amongst others, that the petitioner, in terms of the undertaking filed, cannot put up any further construction or permit occupation of the constructed portion until there is due consideration of the application under Section 240(8) of the BBMP Act.

2. Sri P.N.Manmohan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, arguing on why there must be a review of this Court's order dated 29.11.2024 submits that the petitioner's application under Section 240(8) of the BBMP Act is considered on 29.07.2025 and the decision is as against the favourable consideration of such application but then this Court has intervened in the next writ petition in W.P.No.24119/2025 [LB- BMP] directing the authorities to reconsider such decision in accordance with law. The learned counsel submits that there are certain typographical errors in the order disposing of the petition in W.P.No.24119/2025 [LB-BMP] in which an application is filed and pending.

3. Crucially, Sri.P.N.Manmohan submits that this petitioner's request for indulgence in the present petition is limited to seek liberty to occupy the second floor of the construction which is covered by the Occupancy Certificate dated 02.11.2022. The question of condonation of delay in filing this review petition is considered in the light of the afore after hearing Sri Pawan Kumar, a learned standing counsel for the BBMP, who accepts notice for the respondents. The petitioner has filed this application for limited purposes and in the light of the subsequent circumstances pleading certain difficulties. As such, the application for condonation of delay is accepted and the petition stands disposed of by this clarification in the peculiarities.

[A] The stipulation in this Court's order dated

29.11.2024 that the petitioner shall not put up further construction or permanent occupation of the constructed portion is specific to the period taken by the authorities to consider the petitioner's application under Section 240(8) of the BBMP Act. As such, the efficacy of this stipulation must only be until such consideration.

[B] After there is consideration as is now stated, the question whether the petitioner must occupy any constr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top