Karnataka High Court
Professor Dr. Dhirendra V. Kubair vs State Of Karnataka on 27 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:13130-DB
WA No. 194 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT APPEAL NO. 194 OF 2025 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
1. PROFESSOR DR. DHIRENDRA V. KUBAIR
S/O. LATE PROFESSOR DR. V.G. KUBAIR
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
81/1 PROFESSOR V.G. KUBAIR'S
APARTMENTS
4TH MAIN ROAD MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU - 560 003.
2. MRS. BHAGYASHREE KUBAIR
W/O. PROFESSOR DR. DHIRENDRA V. KUBAIR
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
81/1 PROFESSOR V.G.
KUBAIR'S APARTMENTS
4TH MAIN ROAD
Digitally MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 003.
signed by
CHAITHRA ...APPELLANTS
Location: (BY SRI/PROF. DR. DHIRENDRA V. KUBAIR,
High Court
of Karnataka PARTY-IN-PERSON)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
OF THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:13130-DB
WA No. 194 of 2025
T. CHOWDIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST
BENGALURU - 560 020.
3. BRUHAT BENGALURU
MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP)
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF COMMISSIONER NO.1,
N.R. SQUARE, RANI KITTOOR
CHENNAMMA CIRCLE
HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 001.
4. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING WEST ZONE
BRUHAT BENGALURU
MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP)
SAMPIGE ROAD OPP. MANTRI MALL
BHASHYAM PARK, SHESHADRIPURAM
BENGALURU - 560 020.
5. MR. VINAYSKRISHNA H.V.,
S/O. LATE H.V. NANDAKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
81, 4TH MAIN ROAD
MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 003.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.K. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE
SINGLE JUDGE ORDER IN WP 19606 OF 2024 (LB-BMP) DATED
13.01.2025 AND ADJUDICATE THE WP No. 19606/2024 ON THE
FACTS OF THE CASE AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY
OTHER WRIT, QUASHING THE ILLEGALLY SANCTIONED
COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LICENSE/PLAN No.
BBMP/CC/0430/20-21, LP No. BBMP AD.COM/WST/1248/19-20
(PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-B) DATED 28.05.2020 BY THE
RESPONDENT No.4 (ADTP (WEST) BBMP) AND ETC,.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:13130-DB
WA No. 194 of 2025
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
N. V. ANJARIA
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)
Heard learned appellant-party-in-person-Dr. Dhirendra V.
Kubair and learned Government Advocate Mr. K.S. Harish for
respondent No.1-State who appears upon service of the copy of
the appeal in advance.
2. What is sought to be called in question in this appeal is the
judgment and order dated 13.01.2025 of learned Single Judge,
whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant-party-in-person
came to be dismissed.
3. In the writ petition, the petitioner had prayed to set aside the
sanctioned commercial-cum-residential building licence plan dated
28.05.2020 issued by respondent No.4-the Assistant Director,
Town Planning, (West Zone).
NC: 2025:KHC:13130-DB
4. While dismissing the petition, what weighed with learned
Single Judge was that the plan was sanctioned as back as in the
year 2020 and that the building has also come up. It was recorded
by learned Single Judge that the petitioner was aware about the
sanctioning of the plan and that he had made several
representations-complaints to the authorities regarding deviation
from the construction. Since the petition was filed after lapse of five
years, learned Single Judge did not thought it fit to entertain on the
ground of delay and on the ground that the petitioner despite being
aware did not choose to come to the court immediately.
5. While learned party-in-person would admit that the building
has come up, he submitted that some part of the building which is
for commercial use has not been so far occupied. Be that as it may.
6. It is to be noticed that while not entertaining the petition,
learned Single Judge adopted a balanced approach by observing
that the dismissal of the petition shall not be construed to confer
legitimacy on the building that is constructed. If the construction is
in contravention of the conditions of the sanctioned plan, learned
Single Judge obligated the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike
(BBMP) to initiate appropriate action and if initiated, to conclude the
NC: 2025:KHC:13130-DB
proceedings in respect of the alleged deviation from the plan
expeditiously.
7. While the court does not find any good ground to interfere
with the order of learned Single Judge, the appeal is dismissed with
reiteration that the BBMP shall look into the aspect of deviation of
the plan and if found, shall carry out the directions of learned Single
Judge.
Sd/-
(N. V. ANJARIA)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
CR
