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
NC: 2025:KHC:49272
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.
NC: 2025:KHC:49272
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.
NC: 2025:KHC:49272
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
NC: 2025:KHC:49272
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
NC: 2025:KHC:49272
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
