Karnataka High Court
Smt Yashodamma vs The Commissioner on 7 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:45231
WP No. 30803 of 2018
C/W WP No. 30804 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 30803 OF 2018 (LB-BMP)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 30804 OF 2018 (LB-BMP)
IN WP No. 30803/2018
BETWEEN:
SMT. YASHODAMMA
W/O. SRI. GOVINDARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/AT NO.38, 2ND MAIN,
4TH CROSS, VITTALNAGAR,
CHAMRAJAPET,
BENGALURU-560018.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ROOPESHA B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
Digitally
signed by BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
SUMA N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE-560001.
Location:
HIGH 2.
COURT OF ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KARNATAKA CHAMRAJAPET SUB-DIVISION,
BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
BANGALORE-560018
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.V.MURALIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1
AND 2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN CASE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:45231
WP No. 30803 of 2018
C/W WP No. 30804 of 2018
HC-KAR
NO.¸À.PÁ.C(ZÁ.¥ÉÃ)¸À.E./¹.N/08/15-16 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
11.09.2015 AND QUASH NOTICES ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
UNDER SECTION 321(3) OF KMC ACT DATED 11.09.2015 VIDE
¸À.PÁ.C(ZÁ.¥ÉÃ)¸À.E./¹.N/08/15-16 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND THE JUDGMENT
DATED 31.01.2018 IN APPEAL NO.944/2015 PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VIDE ANNEXURE-H.
IN WP NO. 30804/2018
BETWEEN:
SMT. YASHODAMMA
W/O SRI. GOVINDARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/AT NO.38, 2ND MAIN,
4TH CROSS, VITTALNAGAR,
CHAMRAJAPET,
BENGALURU-560018.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ROOPESHA B.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE-560001.
2. ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
CHAMRAJAPET SUB-DIVISION,
BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
BANGALORE-560018
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.H.PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1
AND 2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN CASE
NO.¸À.PÁ.C(ZÁ.¥ÉÃ)¸À.E./¹.N/07/15-16 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:45231
WP No. 30803 of 2018
C/W WP No. 30804 of 2018
HC-KAR
11.09.2015 AND QUASH NOTICES ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 321(3) OF KMC ACT DATED
11.09.2015 VIDE ¸À.PÁ.C(ZÁ.¥ÉÃ)¸À.E./¹.N/07/15-16 VIDE ANNEXURE-H
AND THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.01.2018 IN APPEAL NO.945/2015
PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VIDE
ANNEXURE-K.
THESE PETITIONS, 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 petitioner who is common in both these petitions has
challenged an order bearing No.¸À.PÁ.C(ZÁ.¥ÉÃ)¸À.E./¹.N/08/15-16
dated 11.09.2015 issued by respondent No.2. She has also
challenged the judgment dated 31.01.2018 passed in Appeal
Nos.944/2015 and 945/2015 repsectively by the Karnataka
Appellate Tribunal.
2. The petitioner/Smt. Yashodamma who is common
in both these petitions was served with a notice under Sections
321(1) and 321(2) followed by an order dated 11.09.2015
under Section 321(3) of Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act,
1976. She challenged the same before the Karnataka Appellate
Tribunal in Appeal Nos.944/2015 and 945/2015 respectively
NC: 2025:KHC:45231
HC-KAR
which were dismissed. Hence, she is therefore before this
Court.
3. When this petition was listed on 30.10.2025, the
following order was passed:
Learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing
the petitions for some time, submitted that the
petitioner, who is common in both these petitions,
has stopped the construction on the respective
properties involved in these petitions. He submits
that the petitioner would file an application to
amalgamate the respective properties involved in
these petitions and for issuance of a fresh plan. He,
therefore, submits that a direction be issued to the
respondents to consider the application of the
petitioner for amalgamation of the respective
properties involved in these petitions and for issuance
of a fresh plan.
In order to enable the petitioner to file an
appropriate application for amalgamation of the
respective properties involved in these petitions and
to file an application for a fresh plan after
amalgamation, list these petitions on 07.11.2025.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner now submits
that the petitioner has not filed an application for amalgamation
NC: 2025:KHC:45231
HC-KAR
of the respective properties involved in these petitions and for
issuance of a fresh plan.
5. In that view of the matter, since there is no serious
challenge to the violations reported by the respondents, no
indulgence can be shown to the petitioner in these petitions.
6. However, if the petitioner desires to save the
building, constructed by her, she may file applications for
amalgamation of both the properties within two months from
today and also for sanction of a plan.
7. If the petitioner in these petitions fails to avail this
opportunity, the respondents shall take necessary steps for
demolishing the structures already put up by the petitioner.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ)
JUDGE
HJ
