[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
S Dayalan vs State Of Karnataka on 12 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:15007
WP No. 5536 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
WRIT PETITION NO.5536 OF 2026 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
1. S. DAYALAN
S/O LATE SRINIVAIAN
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.21/A
42ND CROSS, 4TH BLOCK
RAJAJINAGAR
BENGALURU-560 010.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MURALIDHAR H.M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by
GEETHA P G 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Location: URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HIGH 4TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDAH
COURT OF DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY
N.R. SQUARE
BANGALORE -560 002
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER.
3. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF
TOWN PLANNING (WEST)
THE GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:15007
WP No. 5536 of 2026
HC-KAR
BHASYAM PARK, SESHADRIPURAM
BENGALURU-560 009.
4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER OF
TOWN PLANNING (WEST)
THE GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY
BHASYAM PARK
SESHADRIPURAM
BENGALURU-560 009.
5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
MALLESHWARAM SUB DIVISION
THE GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY
BHASYAM PARK
SESHADRIPURAM
BENGALURU-560 009.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BOPANNA BELLIAPPA., AGA., FOR R.1;
SRI. B.S. KARTHIKEYAN, ADVOCATE FOR R.2 TO R.5.)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT
PETITION, QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION DATED
02.01.2026 VIDE ANNEXURE-'A', ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENTS (GREATER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY) REJECTING THE MODIFIED PLAN SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER, ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH
PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:15007
WP No. 5536 of 2026
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
1. Petitioner as well as his neighbour have put up
construction in violation of the building bye-laws and the
sanctioned plan. It resulted in action being initiated
against both of them by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara
Palike and both of them approaching this Court for relief.
This Court in W.P.Nos.6290/2025 c/w 11293/2025 passed
the following:
"ORDER
As per the request of parties, writ petitions are
disposed of with a direction to the BBMP to initiate
appropriate action against the petitioner as well as
contesting private respondent in accordance with law, as
expeditiously as possible.
Parties are also given liberty to make necessary
representation for approval of a modified building plan in
accordance with law.
While taking the decision, BBMP will take into
consideration all the orders that have been passed by
various Courts in the litigation said to have been taken
place in respect of the properties concerned."
NC: 2026:KHC:15007
HC-KAR
2. Thereafter, both the petitioner as well as his neighbour
submitted modified plans and the same came to be
rejected by the BBMP. Aggrieved by the same, the
neighbour of the petitioner preferred W.P.No.1020/2026.
This Court, on 19.02.2026, has passed the following order:
"1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
"a) Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari to
quash the Endorsement issued by the Respondent
No.4 to the Petitioner in
Sa.Ka.Ni.Aa(Ma)/PR/443/2025-26, dated
19.12.2025, which is at Annexure-A to the Writ
Petition.
b) Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus by
restraining the Respondents from issuing any
further such false notices or endorsements until
disposal of Petition before the Hon'ble Apex
Court, which is pending for adjudication in regard
to "Akrama Sakrama Scheme".
c) Grant such other relies as the facts and
circumstances of the case may deem fit, in the
interest of justice and equity."
2. The provisional order placed on record indicates
that the deviation in question is less than 50%.
3. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, by order dated
19.02.2025 in W.P.No.21041/2021, has held that
where a building plan had been sanctioned prior to
the amendment introducing Section 321A to the
NC: 2026:KHC:15007
HC-KAR
Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976,
unauthorised construction could be considered for
regularisation. The Co-ordinate Bench further
observed that where the setback violation is less
than 25% in the case of non-residential buildings
and less than 50% in the case of residential
buildings, and in view of the fact that the issue is
presently pending consideration before the Hon'ble
Apex Court, the benefit of regularisation would
enure to the petitioner if the Apex Court were to
uphold the validity of the amendment.
4. In my considered view, the said observations would
squarely apply to the facts of the present case. The
deviation, as noted in the provisional order, is less
than 50%, and therefore falls within the
parameters contemplated by the Co-ordinate
Bench.
5. Consequently, the writ petition stands disposed of
holding that the petitioner would be entitled to seek
regularisation of the unauthorised construction in
the event that the Hon'ble Apex Court upholds the
amendment introducing Section 321A to the
Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. Until
such adjudication by the Apex Court, the impugned
order shall remain in abeyance and shall not be
given effect to.
6. Needless to observe, in the event the Hon'ble Apex
Court were to strike down the amendment, it would
NC: 2026:KHC:15007
HC-KAR
be open to the respondents to proceed in
accordance with law and take such action as may
be permissible under the statutory framework then
prevailing."
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that as per the
amended law, he is entitled to save some portion of the
construction put up by him. According to the petitioner,
he thought he could have saved the entire construction,
and hence, he submitted the modified plan accordingly.
However, the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, now
Greater Bengaluru Authority, without stating as to the
details of the deviation and the extent of deviation that
has to be removed, has communicated a one-line order to
the petitioner that his modified plan has been rejected.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits, if the
Greater Bengaluru Authority were to communicate to him
what is the extent of deviation and what needs to be
removed, he is willing to remove the excess construction.
4. Learned counsel for the Greater Bengaluru Authority
('GBA' for short), upon instructions, submits that they are
NC: 2026:KHC:15007
HC-KAR
willing to communicate to the petitioner the deviations
that are required to be removed as per the amended law.
He further submits that the officers of GBA will visit the
property of the petitioner on 18th March 2026, conduct the
necessary inspection and submit a report in this regard.
5. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) The concerned Officers of GBA shall visit the property
of the petitioner on 18th March 2026, survey the same and
submit a report as to the extent of deviation therein. The
petitioner shall remove the excess construction, within one
month thereafter, failing which the respondent-GBA shall
have the same removed.
(ii) The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of.
SD/-
(M.I.ARUN)
JUDGE
hkh. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41
