Karnataka High Court
Shri Satish Tunga vs The Commissioner on 26 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:49272
WP No. 49713 of 2016
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 49713 OF 2016 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI SATISH TUNGA
S/O LATE SRI CHENNAKESHAVA TUNGA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/A OLD HOUSE NO.514/E
PRESENT NEW BBMP NO.514/E-1/111/2
1ST MAIN ROAD, EAST OF CHORD ROAD
RPC LAYOUT, HAMPINAGAR
BENGALURU-560104
2. SMT. VEDAVATHI
W/O SRI. SATISH TUNGA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/A OLD HOUSE NO.514/E
PRESENT NEW BBMP NO.514/E-1/111/2
1ST MAIN ROAD, EAST OF CHORD ROAD
RPC LAYOUT, HAMPINAGAR
BENGALURU-560104
...PETITIONERS
Digitally (BY SRI. A. NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE)
signed by
SUMA AND:
Location:
HIGH 1.
COURT OF THE COMMISSIONER
KARNATAKA BHRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE, HUDSON CIRCLE
BENGALURU-560002
2. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
BHRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
GALI ANJANEYASWAMY TEMPLE
SUB DIVISION, WARD NO.133
VTH MAIN ROAD, HAMPINAGAR
BENGALURU-560104
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. AMITH DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:49272
WP No. 49713 of 2016
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS IN RELATING TO THE PROCEEDINGS CULMINATING IN
PASSING OF THE ORDER DATED 26.05.2012 IN NO.AEE(GA)
CO/21/2012-13 BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT AND SET-ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 26.05.2012 MADE IN AEE (GA) CO/21/2012-13
PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-G AND THE
ORDER DATED 17.08.2016 IN APPEAL NO.510/2012 PASSED BY THE
COURT OF THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT
BENGALURU AT ANNEXURE-L BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL.
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 petitioners have challenged a confirmation order bearing No. ¸ÀASÉå: ¸À.PÁ.¤.1(UÁD)¹N/21/12-13 dated 26.05.2012 passed by respondent No.2 under Section 321(3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (henceforth referred to as 'Act, 1976') and the order dated 17.08.2016 passed by Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru (henceforth referred to as 'Tribunal') in Appeal No.510/2012.
2. (i) The petitioners claim that they are the owners of the property bearing No.514/E/1, which is assessed to tax -3- NC: 2025:KHC:49272 WP No. 49713 of 2016 HC-KAR and assigned Municipal No.514/E/1/111/2 situate at Magadi Chord Road Extension, 1st Main Road, East of Chord Road, RPC Layout, Hampinagar, Bengaluru - 560104. The petitioners obtained sanction of a building plan and license to construct ground, first, second and third floors. The petitioners contend that after they occupied the building, the respondent No.2 issued a confirmation order dated 26.05.2012 under Section 321(3) of the Act, 1976, wherein it was mentioned that the provisional order dated 11.04.2011 under Sections 321(1) and 321(2) of the Act, 1976 was passed. The petitioners contend that the respondent No.2 did not serve the provisional order under Section 321(1) and did not issue notice under Section 321(2) of the Act, 1976, but proceeded to issue confirmation order under Section 321(3) of the Act, 1976. The petitioners thereafter challenged the said order before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal under Section 443-A of the Act, 1976. The Tribunal also rejected the appeal in terms of the impugned order.
(ii) The petitioners are therefore, before this Court challenging the confirmation order passed by the respondent No.2 and the order passed by the Tribunal. -4-
NC: 2025:KHC:49272 WP No. 49713 of 2016 HC-KAR
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners while inviting the attention of the Court to the order passed under Section 321(3) of the Act, 1976, contended that the petitioners had addressed a letter on 16.04.2012 requesting forty five days time to remove offending deviated portion and thereafter, removed the offending deviated portion. The complainant also vide letter dated 05.05.2012 informed the respondent No.2 about the removal of the offending portion by the petitioners. He therefore, submits that nothing remains to be done pursuant to the impugned order. He therefore, prays that the impugned orders be set at nought. Besides this, he contends that the construction is in accordance with the plan and the respondents cannot take any action to demolish the construction. He also contends that the petitioners are entitled for the benefit under Akrama-Sakrama scheme but in view of the pendency of the proceedings before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respondents are not in a position to extend the said benefit to the petitioners. He therefore, contends that until the said issue is considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respondents should hold their hands and not take any action against the petitioners.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:49272 WP No. 49713 of 2016 HC-KAR
4. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioners were not authorized to put up a basement. He contends that the petitioners are using basement for commercial purpose instead of using it for parking vehicles. Besides this, he contends that the petitioners have violated the set-back norms as well as the coverage area. He contends that as per the order passed under Section 321(3) of the Act, 1976, the petitioners have violated more than 50% in respect of the set-back on the southern and eastern sides and hence, the petitioners are not entitled to any benefit under the Akrama- Sakrama scheme even if the Hon'ble Supreme Court upholds the scheme. He therefore, contends that there is no error in the orders passed by the respondent No.2 as well as the Tribunal, warranting interference.
5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondents.
6. Though the petitioners have contended that they were not served with a notice under Sections 321(1) and 321(2) of the Act, 1976, in the order passed under Section -6- NC: 2025:KHC:49272 WP No. 49713 of 2016 HC-KAR 321(3) of the Act, 1976, there is a reference to the letter submitted by the petitioners on 16.04.2012 stating that they have removed offending deviated portion. Therefore, the petitioners were aware that the construction put up by them is not in accordance with the sanctioned plan. The order under Section 321(3) of the Act, 1976, shows that the petitioners had violated the set-back norms and had also constructed basement floor, which is not permitted under the building plan. The petitioners have also not indicated as to how the order passed under Section 321(3) of the Act, 1976, is incorrect. They ought to have mentioned the set back area they have left and whether the basement was authorized under the plan. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 have inspected the property of the petitioners and have recorded a finding of fact that the petitioners have violated the building plan in not leaving the adequate set backs and laying an unauthorized basement. Therefore, this Court cannot sit in judgment over the findings recorded by the respondent No.2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of Akrama-Sakrama scheme, is also not maintainable since the petitioners have violated more than -7- NC: 2025:KHC:49272 WP No. 49713 of 2016 HC-KAR 50% and what is permitted under Akrama-Sakrama scheme, even if it is applicable to the petitioners, is violation upto 25% in respect of commercial building. Therefore, the contentions raised by the petitioners are all liable to be rejected.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43