Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 25241
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.I. Arun, J
SRI VIKRAM KUMAR SOLANKI – Appellant
Versus
GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO.13685 OF 2026 (LB-BMP)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Keerthi Krishna Reddy
For the Respondents: Pawan Kumar
Municipal authorities cannot arbitrarily seal a property without following the procedure established by law and providing due notice, even when dealing with building deviations from a sanctioned plan.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Law - Due Process - Sealing of property without notice - Action taken by municipal authorities to seal a building without issuing prior notice, especially after deviations from the sanctioned plan were removed, is arbitrary and contrary to law. (Para 2, 4)
(B) Municipal Law - Building Deviations - Power of Authorities - While authorities are duty-bound to remove constructions in violation of sanctioned plans and bye-laws, such actions must strictly adhere to the procedure established by law. (Para 4)
Issues: Whether the sealing of the petitioner's property without prior notice, following the removal of construction deviations, was legally sustainable.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner removed building deviations, but the property was subsequently sealed without notice. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. respondent's admission regarding the lack of notice prior to sealing the property. (Para 3) |
| 3. requirement of due process and prohibition of arbitrary action by municipal authorities. (Para 4) |
| 4. direction to de-seal the property while reserving the authority's right to legal proceedings. (Para 5 , 6) |
Digitally signed by GEETHA P G
Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
1. SRI VIKRAM KUMAR SOLANKI
S/O MANOHAR LAL JAIN
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 903, RANKA CHAMBERS
2ND FLOOR, M B T STREET
NAGRATHPET MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU NORTH - 560 002.
1. GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY
PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS BBMP,
CORPORATION CIRCLE,
N R SQUARE,
BENGALURU - 560 002
REP BY ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER.
2. BENGALURU CENTRAL CITY CORPORATION
GANDHINAGARA ZONE
ANNEXURE-3, BUILDING,
GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY OFFICE PREMISES
N R SQUARE, HUDSON CIRCLE
BENGALURU - 560 002
REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. JOINT COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU CENTRAL CITY CORPORATION
GANDHINAGARA ZONE
ANNEXURE-3, BUILDING,
GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY OFFICE PREMISES
N R SQUARE, HUDSON CIRCLE
BENGALURU - 560 002.
4. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
CHAMARAJPET WARD
OFFICE AT NANJAMBA AGRAHARA
CHAMRAJPET, BENGALURU-560 018.
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT RESPONDENT NOS.2, 3 AND 4 TO FORTHWITH DE-SEAL THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY/BUILDING SEALED ON 24.04.2026 VIDE ANNEXURE-L AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THEM TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM ANY UNLAWFUL INTERFERENCE WITH THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY BEARING MUNICIPAL NO.96 (OLD NOS. 95 AND 96), PID NO.46-4-96, MEASURING EAST TO WEST 60 FEET AND NORTH TO SOUTH 108 FEET, IN ALL MEASURING 6480 SQ. FT., SITUATED AT 2ND MAIN ROAD, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU, WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE ERSTWHILE BBMP, NOW BENGALURU CENTRAL CITY CORPORATION, WARD NO.140, BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER AND CO-OWNERS, EXCEPT IN ACCORDANCE WITH DUE PROCESS OF LAW, ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
ORAL ORDER
1. The case of the petitioner is that a provisional order and a confirmation order was passed under the provisions of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 (for short 'the Act') by the respondents against the building being constructed by the petitioner on the ground that there are certain deviations from the sanctioned plan.
2. Immediately, the petitioner facilitated removal of the deviations and the respondents demolished that portion of the property which was not in conformity with the sanctioned plan. Thereafter, the petitioner continued the construction in accordance with the sanctioned plan. However, without issuing any notice, the respondent authorities entered the premises of the petitioner and sealed the same, which is contrary to law.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents though justifies the action of the respondents, candidly admits that after demolition of the construction which was put up contrary to the sanctioned plan, the property of the petitioner has been sealed without any further notice.
4. No person has a right to put up construction in violation of the sanctioned plan and building bye-laws. If any person puts up construction in violation of the same, the authorities concerned are duty bound to initiate appropriate action to have the same removed. However, the same has to be done as per the procedure established by law and it cannot be an arbitrary action as in the instant case.
5. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is disposed of. The respondents are directed to forthwith remove the seal of the building and permit the petitioner to construct the building in accordance with law.
6. It is needless to state that the respondents are at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings against the petitioner in the manner known to law if there are any
