[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt. Hema Venkatraman vs Chief Commissioner on 5 May, 2026

Author: S Vishwajith Shetty

Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty

                                          -1-
                                                    NC: 2026:KHC:24617
                                                WP No. 14711 of 2026


            HC-KAR




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                     DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MAY, 2026

                                    BEFORE
             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
                 WRIT PETITION NO. 14711 OF 2026 (LB-BMP)


            BETWEEN:

            1.   SMT. HEMA VENKATRAMAN
                 WIFE OF MR. SUBRAMANIAM IYER
                 AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
                 RESIDING AT #26, PALACE
                 APARTMENT NO.202,9TH CROSS,
                 MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU - 560003.
                                                         ...PETITIONER
            (BY SRI. PRAVEENKUMAR HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)

            AND:


Digitally   1.   CHIEF COMMISSIONER
signed by
NANDINI M        GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY
S
                 HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE
Location:
HIGH             BANGALORE-560002.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
            2.   THE COMMISSIONER
                 WEST ZONE, BBMP NO.2
                 16TH CROSS, VYALIKAVAL
                 BBMP BANGALORE
                 BANGALORE 560003.

            3.   THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
                 MALLESWARAM BBMP WARD
                             -2-
                                         NC: 2026:KHC:24617
                                      WP No. 14711 of 2026


 HC-KAR



     IPP CENTER, 16TH CROSS ROAD
     KODANDARAMAPURA,
     VYALIKAVAL,
     BANGALORE 560003.

4.   SMT. USHA SHANKAR
     AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
     WIFE OF SHRI J SHANKAR
     RESIDING AT: # 62,
     2ND FLOOR, LOWER PALACE
     ORCHARDS, SADASHIVA NAGAR,
     BENGALURU-560003.
                                            ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)

     THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I) ISSUE WRIT, ORDER
OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.04.2026 PASSED IN APPEAL
NO.256/2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN SHOFAR
AS IT GRANTS LIBERTY TO THE RESPONDENT NO.4 TO FILE
APPLICATION AND ALSO DIRECTION ISSUED TO RESPONDENT
NO.2 FOR CONSIDERING THE SAID APPLICATION (ANNEXURE-
A) AND ETC.

    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY


                       ORAL ORDER

Petitioner is before this Court under Articles 226 and

227 of the Constitution of India, seeking for the following

relief:

NC: 2026:KHC:24617

HC-KAR

i. Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari and quash the impugned order dated 29.04.2026 passed in Appeal No.256/2025 passed by the respondent No.1 insofar as it grants liberty to the respondent No.4 to file application and also direction issued to respondent No.2 for considering the said application (Annexure-A);

ii. Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit, in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent

Nos.1 to 3.

3. It appears that petitioner had filed a complaint

before the competent authority against respondent No.4

alleging that she has put up illegal and unauthorized

construction in the property belonging to the joint family.

Vide order dated 25.09.2025, respondent No.2 had

confirmed the provisional order passed by it and held that

the construction put up by respondent No.4 was illegal and

unauthorized. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.4

had filed an appeal before respondent No.1 in Appeal No.

256/2025, which was dismissed by respondent No.1, vide

NC: 2026:KHC:24617

HC-KAR

order impugned, reserving liberty to respondent No.4 to

file necessary application before the competent authority

for regularisation of the illegal construction put up by her.

It was further observed that till consideration of such an

application, the illegal construction put up by respondent

No.4 shall not be demolished. Being aggrieved by the

aforesaid observations made by the appellate authority

while dismissing Appeal No.256/2025, the petitioner is

before this Court.

4. Section 249 of the Greater Bengaluru

Governance Act, 2024 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for

short) reads as follows.

"249. Regularisation of certain unlawful buildings.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, when construction of any building is completed in contravention of the provisions of this Chapter and the building bye-laws, the Commissioner may regularise building constructed at least one year prior to the date of notification of this Act subject to the following restrictions and

NC: 2026:KHC:24617

HC-KAR

such rules as may be prescribed and on payment of the amount specified in sub- section (2), namely:- (a) where the building is built abutting the neighbouring property or where the set back provided is less than the limit prescribed in bye laws, violation upto twenty-five percent in case of non- residential buildings and fifty percent in case of residential buildings may be regularized:

Provided that the Premium Floor Area Ratio issued under section 18B or the Development Rights Certificates issued under section 14B of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, (Karnataka Act 11 of 1963) may be utilized for such constructed buildings for the extents constructed in violation of the provisions of this Chapter as per provisions for utilization of the Premium Floor Area Ratio or the Development Rights Certificates under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (Karnataka Act 11 of 1963) and rules and regulations there under. (b) No development made in the basement or usage in contravention of byelaw shall be regularized; (c) The construction of building

NC: 2026:KHC:24617

HC-KAR

shall not be regularised if it violates the building line specified on any given road unless the khatadar of such building furnishes an under taking that the space between the building line and the road or foot path or margin will be given up free of cost at any time when required for the purpose of widening the road in question; and (d) The provisions of sub-sections (2) to (14) of section 76 FF of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, (Karnataka Act 11 of 1963) shall apply mutatis mutandis for regularization of building under this section and application for regularization being made to the Commissioner.

(2) Regularisation of any construction under this section shall be subject to payment of the prescribed amount which may be different for different types of contravention of building bye-laws: Provided that the amount so prescribed shall not be less than,- (a) six percent of the market value, determined in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (Karnataka Act 34 of 1957) and rules made there under, of the portion of the

NC: 2026:KHC:24617

HC-KAR

building built in violation of the provisions referred in sub-section (1), if such violation of set-back norms and permissible floor area ratio does not exceed twenty five percent; (b) eight percent of the market value, determined in accordance with the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (Karnataka Act 34 of 1957)and the rules made there under, of the portion of the building built in violation of the provisions referred in sub-

section (1), if such violation of set-back norms and permissible floor area ratio exceeds twenty five percent but does not exceed fifty percent: Provided further that where the portion of the building is built in violation of the provisions referred in sub- section (1) is being used or meant for non- residential purpose and amount payable for regularization of such portion shall be, - (a) twenty percent of the market value, determined in accordance with the Karnataka Stamp Act,1957 (Karnataka Act 34 of 1957) and the rules made there under, of the portion of the building built in violation of the provisions referred in sub- section (1), if such violation of set-back norms and permissible floor area ratio does not exceed twelve and a half percent; (b)

NC: 2026:KHC:24617

HC-KAR

thirty five percent of the market value, determined in accordance with the Karnataka Stamp Act,1957 (Karnataka Act 34 of 1957) and the rules made there under, of the portion of the building built in violation of the provisions referred in sub- section (1), if such violation of set-back norms and permissible floor area ratio exceeds twelve and a half percent but does not exceed twenty five percent.

(3) No person shall be liable to pay fine or fee for regularization under any other law if he has paid regularization fee under this Act for the same violations. (4) All payments made under sub-section (1) shall be credited to a separate fund kept in the City Corporation called the urban areas infrastructure Development fund which shall be utilized in such manner, for the development of infrastructure, civic amenities, lighting, parks, drinking water, drainage system and for any other infrastructure, as may be prescribed."

5. A reading of the aforesaid provision of law

would make it very clear that a party has a right to

NC: 2026:KHC:24617

HC-KAR

approach the competent authority seeking regularisation

of the illegal or unauthorised construction put up by the

said party.

6. Under the circumstances, no exception can be

found in the observation made by the appellate authority

reserving liberty to respondent No.4 to file an application

under Section 249 of the Act. The appellate authority has

made it very clear that the competent authority shall

consider such an application strictly in accordance with law

and in terms of the Notification of the State Government

which is referred to in clause 4 of the operative portion of

the Order.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner apprehends

that, since the appellate authority has also observed that

till the application filed by respondent No.1 under Section

249 of the Act is considered and disposed of, no further

action shall be taken for demolition of the illegal

construction, respondent No.4 is likely to protract the

litigation before the competent authority who is required

- 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC:24617

HC-KAR

to consider the application filed under Section 249 of the

Act. Such an apprehension can be taken care of by

directing the competent authority to dispose of the

application if any, filed by the respondent No.4 under

Section 249 of the Act, within a time frame.

8. Accordingly, the following:

ORDER i. Writ petition is disposed of with an observation that the competent authority before whom Respondent No.4 may file an application as provided under Section 249 of the Act, shall dispose of such an application as expeditiously as possible, but not later than a period of three months from the date of receipt of such an application.