Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 25038
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.I. Arun, J
M/S MARVELLA BUILDTECH – Appellant
Versus
THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 13637 OF 2026 (LB-BMP)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Manjunath K.V.
For the Respondents: Pawan Kumar
The High Court cannot resolve disputed questions of fact under Article 226; however, to ensure justice in construction violation cases, it may order a re-survey of the property to determine the actual extent of deviations and their potential for regularization.
Headnote:(A) Writ Jurisdiction - Disputed Questions of Fact - The Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot decide issues that pertain to disputed questions of fact. (Para 5)
(B) Municipal Law - Construction Violations - No person has a right to construct in violation of a sanctioned plan; such constructions are liable for demolition unless permissible deviations can be regularized under the law. (Para 6)
(C) Procedural Fairness - Re-inspection of Property - To resolve uncertainty regarding whether construction adheres to the sanctioned plan and whether deviations are regularizable, it is appropriate for the appellate authority to conduct a re-survey/re-inspection of the property to ensure the interest of justice. (Para 8, 9)
Issues: Whether the Court can interfere in a dispute of fact regarding construction violations and whether a re-survey of the property is necessary to ensure justice.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dispute over construction violations, lack of notice, and the petitioner's request for re-inspection. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. writ jurisdiction is not applicable for deciding disputed questions of fact. (Para 5) |
| 3. illegal constructions are liable for demolition unless regularizable under law. (Para 6) |
| 4. necessity of re-survey by authorities to resolve uncertainty and ensure justice. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. direction for property survey and liberty to apply for regularization of deviations. (Para 10) |
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09.12.2025 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 AUTHORITY IN APPEAL NO.275/2024 AND ORDERS PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 AUTHORITY DATED 10.01.2024 VIDE ORDER BEARING NO.Sam.Sa.Ni.Na.Yo(da)/Po/188/2023-24 UNDER SECTION 248(1) AND SECTION 248(2) OF BBMP Act, 2020 AND ORDER DATED 18.01.2024 ORDER VIDE ORDER BEARING NO.Sam.Sa.Ni.Na.Yo(da)/Co.188/2023-24 UNDER SECTION 248(3) OF BBMP Act, 2020 AS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURES-A, B, B1 AND C RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
ORAL ORDER
1. On the ground that petitioner has put up construction in violation of the sanctioned plan, the respondents have initiated action against the petitioner and after inspection of the property of the petitioner, a provisional order and a confirmatory order have been passed against the petitioner, wherein a finding has been given that petitioner has put up construction in violation of the sanctioned plan and it has been ordered that, that portion of the property which is in violation of the sanctioned plan be demolished.
2. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent no.1. Respondent no.1, based on the pleadings and documents produced by the petitioner has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has not produced any document to show that the conclusion arrived at in the provisional order and the confirmation order to be erroneous and for the said reason has dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.
3. The case of the petitioner is that, notices as contemplated under law, were not issued prior to the passing of the provisional order and the confirmation order to the petitioner. It is further submitted that respondent no.1 has not verified the documents of the petitioner and has passed the impugned order. It is further submitted that, if a new inspection were to be conducted then in that event petitioner would be able to show that he has put up construction only in accordance with the sanctioned plan and not otherwise. Petitioner further submits that if upon a new inspection, it is found that petitioner has put up construction in violation of the sanctioned plan, the petitioner himself will voluntarily demolish the same or will seek regularization of permissible deviations in accordance with law.
4. Learned counsel for respondents, upon instructions, submits that due notices have been issued to the petitioner. He submits that petitioner has put up construction in violation of building bye-laws and hence the provisional order and confirmatory order have been issued to the petitioner in accordance with law. He also justifies the impugned order passed in the appeal by respondent no.1 and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. The lis in the present writ petition pertains to a disputed question of fact. That is, whether the petitioner has put up construction in accordance with the sanctioned plan or not and if there are any deviations, can they be saved by the petitioner, by making a fresh application in accordance with the amended bye-laws or not. This Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India cannot decide the issue as it pertains to
