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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 408

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
SMT. JAYANTHI KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
THE BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE – Respondent
WP 47884/2017



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

WRIT PETITION NO. 47884 OF 2017 (LB-BMP)

BETWEEN:

SMT. JAYANTHI KUMAR

W/O.SRI.N.C.ANAND,

AGED 45 YEARS,

OCC: SOFTWARE ENGINEER,

NO.211, 1ST B MAIN ROAD,

7TH CROSS, KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN,

BENGALURU-560060.

REP. BY HER GPA HOLDER/FATHER,

SRI.S.B.KUMAR,

S/O.LATE BASAVARAJU,

AGED 76 YEARS,

R/AT NO.211, 1ST ‘B’ MAIN ROAD,

7TH CROSS, KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN,

BENGALURU-560060.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. PRASANNA V R., ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed

by SHWETHA AND:

RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH

1. THE BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE

COURT OF

REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER,

KARNATAKA

BENGALURU CITY,

BENGALURU-560001.

2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

KENGERI SUB-DIVISION,

BBMP, MYSURU ROAD,

KENGERI, BENGALURU-560060. 3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,

DEPT. OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,

M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. CHANDINI SINGH., HCGP FOR R3;

SRI. T.M. VENKATA REDDY., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DTD 15.02.2017 IN APPEAL NO.272/2009 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU VIDE ANNX-A AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs;

i. Writ of Certiorari, quashing the order dated

15.02.2017 in Appeal No.272/2009 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal at Bengaluru, vide Annexure-A;

ii. Writ of Certiorari, quashing the Confirmation order dated 13.03.2009 in No.Sa.Ka.A/Kem.U.Vi/C.O./02/2008-09 issued under Section 321(3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, confirming the Provisional Order dated 31.12.2008 in No.Sa.Ka A/Kem.U.Vi/P.O./02/2008-09, both issued by the 2nd Respondent-Assistant Executive Engineer of BBMP, vide Annexure-B and C respectively.

iii. Any other writ or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to meet the ends of justice.

2. The grievance of the petitioner was that the respondents had initiated proceedings under Section 321 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 and that they would demolish the construction put up by the petitioner on account of the fact that there is no plan sanction which had been obtained by the petitioner.

3. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated 19.11.2025 had permitted the petitioner to submit a fresh plan for sanction as per the applicable building bylaws and directed the respondent to consider the same.

4. On enquiry today with the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether an application for change of land use has been filed along with the said application, he submits that such application has not been filed because the property has been zoned for commercial purposes under the revised master plan.

5. Even if the property may be zoned for a particular purpose, the fact would remain that the property has not been converted and as such it would be required for the petitioner to make necessary application along with the plan sanction seeking conversion as also change of land use in conformity with the zoning regulations.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that such application would be filed within a period of three weeks from today i.e., on or before 29.01.2026.

7. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that grievance of the petitioner could be redressed by directing the respondent to consider the application for change of land use as also the application for grant of plan sanctions in terms of the applicable law and restrain the respondent from taking any action for demolition or otherwise until such application is considered. As such, I pass the following;

ORDER

i. The writ petition is partly-allowed.

ii. Petitioner is permitted to submit an application for change of land use

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