Karnataka High Court
The Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagar Palike vs C B C I Society For Medical Education on 6 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:44938-DB
WA No. 1101 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1101 OF 2025 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
1. THE BRUHATH BENGALURU
MAHANAGAR PALIKE
NR SQUARE
CORPORATION CIRCLE
BENGALURU 560002
REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER
Digitally 2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF
signed by TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH)
NIRMALA
DEVI BBMP, N R SQUARE
Location: CORPORATION
HIGH COURT
OF BENGALURU 560002
KARNATAKA
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. MONESH KUMAR K B, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. C B C I SOCIETY FOR MEDICAL EDUCATION
SARJAPURA- MARATHAHALLI ROAD
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:44938-DB
WA No. 1101 of 2025
HC-KAR
BESIDES BANK OF BARODA
JOHN NAGAR, KOARMANGALA
BENGALURU 560034
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOMENT
M S BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU 560001
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANMOHAN P N, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. VINAY N, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1
SRI. K.S. HARISH, GA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN WP
NO.12316/2025, BE PLEASED TO SET-ASIDE THE INTERIM
ORDER DATED 28/04/2025 PASSED IN WP NO.12316/2025
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND BE FURTHER
PLEASED TO DISMISS THE WP NO.12316/2025.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN
AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:44938-DB
WA No. 1101 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. For the reasons stated in the application - I.A.1/2025,
the same is allowed. Delay of 43 days in filing the appeal is
condoned.
2. The appellants [BBMP] have filed the present appeal
impugning an interim order dated 28.04.2025 passed by the
learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No.12316/2025 [LB-
BMP].
3. The respondent No.1 had filed the said petition calling in
question the condition imposed by BBMP requiring the writ
petitioner to surrender a portion of the land with a condition for
sanctioning the building plan. According to the respondents, the
said condition is impermissible and without authority of law.
Pending consideration of the said dispute, the learned Single
Judge has directed the BBMP to consider the sanction plan 'for
the extent of property, while leaving out the extent of land required
to be relinquished for the purpose of road'. Thus, BBMP is only
required to consider the sanction of the plan by excluding the
portion of the land which, according to BBMP, is required to be
surrendered.
NC: 2025:KHC:44938-DB
HC-KAR
4. Considering that the controversy is pending consideration
before the learned Single Judge, the impugned order cannot be
faulted. It adequately protects the appellants in the event, the
respondent fails in its writ petition.
5. The contention that it will not be possible for BBMP to
monitor the use of the land which is excluded is insubstantial. The
BBMP may earmark the land which is required to be relinquished
on the sanction plans. Needless to state, if any part of that land is
used, the same would be illegal and would not preclude BBMP
from taking over the possession of the same in the event, the
respondents fail in its writ petition.
6. The appeal is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid
observations.
SD/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
SD/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
BS
