Manju Reddy v. The Commissioner

Order in W.P. No.5274/2026. This Court has disposed of this petition on 19.02.2026 quashing an Endorsement and directing the authorities to consider the applications filed by these respondents for plan approval. After this order, these respondents have

been admitted to a sanction plan and a building license. The Provisional Order impugned in W.P.No.11152/2025. The petitioners in W.P.No.7282/2025 contend that the construction by these respondents is commenced without a sanctioned plan.

¶3Both Sri Ram Prasad P, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No. 7282/2025, and Sri H. Pavana Chandra Shetty, the learned counsel for the fifth and sixth respondents, are categorical in stating that the petition in W.P.No.7282/2025 is rendered infructuous because the fifth and sixth respondents are admitted to the sanction plan. The question then is about the terms upon which the writ petition in W.P.No.11152/2025 must be disposed of. In this regard, this Court must refer to the interim orders in these petitions. This Court has permitted the respondents to proceed with the construction if it is in accordance with the sanctioned plan and this

Court has also called upon the Greater Bengaluru Authority [GBA] to inspect the property and file a report.

¶4On the previous occasion, Sri Ram Prasad P has canvassed that the report is not filed though the inspection is conducted, and he has reasons to state that the GBA and its officers are acting in cohorts with the fifth and sixth respondents. This Court has observed that it would be necessary for the jurisdictional Executive Assistant Engineer to file a report into this Court on the deviations from the sanctioned plan and that if this Court were to discern any latches in the authorities acting despite the interim orders on the inspection, the officers could be called upon to answer why proceedings should not be commenced against them individually.

¶5On behalf of the fifth and sixth respondents, it was stated that the construction is stopped and that they are only taking measures to

safeguard the building material lying at the site and are not undertaking any other activity. Presently, an Action Taken Report is filed. Sri Ram Prasad P asserts that this Action Taken Report establishes the petitioner's case that there is a deviation from the sanctioned plan, but Sri H. Pavana Chandra Shetty opposes the same.

¶6This Court, in the circumstances of the case, opines that, because there is an allegation of deviation from the sanctioned plan, the appropriate recourse would be to allow the proceedings to be initiated under Section 243 of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024 [GBG Act] as it envisages an inspection of the construction with notice, a provisional order if the circumstances justify, the notice of such provisional order and an opportunity to show cause with an occasion for personal hearing. In the present case, this procedure must be followed before there can be a final word on whether there is

deviation from the sanctioned plan and any inspection and provisional order that could be, must be in the backdrop of the Action Taken Report that is filed into this Court today.

¶7The next question is about the fifth and the sixth respondents being permitted to complete construction during the pendency of such proceedings and reserving them with liberty to avail the advantage of the Notification dated 05.01.2026 if that is even applicable. The answer to the first must be in a definite no, and this is because it is shown to this Court's satisfaction that the fifth and sixth respondents still have to show that there is no deviation from the sanctioned plan in the light of the Action Taken Report.

¶8As regards these respondents being entitled to the benefit of the Notification dated

05.01.2026, this Court opines that this is also an aspect that must be brought out when there will be

an opportunity to show cause against the confirmation of a provisional order. This aspect must be considered while passing a confirmation order under Section 243[3][e] of the GBG Act. In the light of the afore, the petitions stand disposed of by the following ORDER [A] The petitions stand disposed of. [B] The petitioner is reserved with liberty to file, with the jurisdictional authority under Section 243 of the GBG Act, a certified copy of this Order along with a copy of the Action Taken Report filed into this Court today. They shall be at liberty to file these within a week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. [C] The jurisdictional authority under Section 243 of the GBG Act shall, within two [2] weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this Order and the Action

Taken Report, initiate proceedings for inspection and further action. [D] The fifth and the sixth respondents shall not commence construction until there is an order as contemplated under Section 243 of the GBG Act, but they will be at liberty to rely upon the Notification dated

05.01.2026 if it is applicable as part of the response to the Provisional Order that may be after due process.

Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

NV

NC:(2026:KHC:35784( WP(No.(11152(of(2025( C/W(WP(No.(7282(of(2025( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( INATHEAHIGHACOURTAOFAKARNATAKAAATABENGALURUA THDATEDATHISATHEA13 ADAYAOFAJULY,A2026A BEFOREA THEAHON'BLEAMR.AJUSTICEABAMASHYAMAPRASADA WRITAPETITIONANO.A11152AOFA2025A(LB-BMP)A C/WA WRITAPETITIONANO.A7282AOFA2025A(LB-BMP)A A INAWPANo.A11152/2025A A BETWEEN:A AA 1.- MR.-MANJU-REDDY- S/O.-SAMPANGI-RAMA-REDDY-- AGED-ABOUT-47-YEARS,- - 2.- MRS.-MAMATHA-.S.,- WIFE-OF-MR.-MANJU-REDDY,-- Digitally AGED-ABOUT-39-YEARS.-signedtiby VANAMALA - N BOTH-ARE-RESIDING-AT-NO.-1026/7,--Location: HIGH RD'D'-BLOCK,-3 --CROSS,-- COURT0OF OPP.-BROOKFIELD,-AECS-LAYOUT,-KARNATAKA KUNDANAHALLI,-- BENGALURU---560-037.- …PETITIONERS- (BY-SRI.-H-PAVANA-CHANDRA-SHETTY.,ADVOCATE)- A NC:(2026:KHC:35784( WP(No.(11152(of(2025( C/W(WP(No.(7282(of(2025( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( AND:A A 1.- THE-COMMISSIONER- BBMP,-NO.1,-N.R.ROAD,-- BENGALURU-560-002.- - 2.- THE-ASSISTANT-EXECUTIVE-ENGINEER,- OFFICE-OF-THE-ASST.-EXECUTIVE-ENGINEER,- HOODI-(SUB-DIVISION),-- MAHADEVAPURA-ZONE-- BENGALURU--560-043.- - …RESPONDENTS- (BY-SRI.-PAWAN-KUMAR.,-ADVOCATE-FOR-R1-&-R2)- - - THIS-WP-IS-FILED-UNDER-ARTICLES-226-AND- 227-OF-THE-CONSTITUTION-OF-INDIA-PRAYING-TO---------------------- ND(A)-QUASHING-THE-IMPUGNED-NOTICE-BY-THE-2 -- RESPONDENT- I.E.- THE- ASST.- EXECUTIVE- ENGINEER,- HBR- SUB-DIVISION,- BBMP,- BEARING- NO.BBMP/AEE/HSD/651/24-25,- ON- 27/02/2025,- WHICH-IS-PRODUCED-AT-ANNEXURE--H.- - INAWPANO.A7282/2025A - BETWEEN:A - - MR.-REDDYVARI-BHOOPATHI- AGED-ABOUT-43-YEARS,-- SON-OF-MR.-ESWAR-KUMAR-REDDYVARI,- RESIDING-AT-NO.31/A,-- NC:(2026:KHC:35784( WP(No.(11152(of(2025( C/W(WP(No.(7282(of(2025( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( RD TH23 --CROSS,-18 --MAIN-ROAD-- RDHSR-LAYOUT,-3 --SECTOR,-- BENGALURU-560102- ...PETITIONER- - (BY-SRI.-RAM-PRASAD-P.,-ADVOCATE)- A AND:A - 1.- BRUHAT-BENGALURU-MAHANAGARA-PALIKE- (BBMP)- N.R.-SQUARE,-- CORPORATION-CIRCLE-- BANGALORE-560002- REPRESENTED-BY-ITS-- CHIEF-COMMISSIONER- - 2.- CHIEF-COMMISSIONER- BRUHATH-BENGALURU-MAHANAGARA-- PALIKE-(BBMP)- HAVING-ITS-OFFICE-AT-NR-SQUARE- CORPORATE-CIRCLE- BANGALORE--560002.- - - 3.- BENGALURU-ELECTRICITY-SUPPLY-COMPANY- (BESCOM)- CORPORATE-OFFICE,-K-R-CIRCLE- BANGALORE---560-001.- - 4.- BANGALORE-WATER-SUPPLY-AND-- SEWERAGE-BOARD-(BWSSB)- CAUVERY-BHAVAN,-K.G-ROAD- BANGALORE-560009- NC:(2026:KHC:35784( WP(No.(11152(of(2025( C/W(WP(No.(7282(of(2025( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( REPRESENTED-BY-ITS-CHAIRMAN- - 5.- MR.-MANJU-REDDY- AGED-ABOUT-47-YEARS,- SON-OF-SAMPANGI-RAMA-REDDY,- - 6.- MRS-MAMATHA- AGED-ABOUT-38-YEARS- WIFE-OF-MANJU-REDDY- - RESPONDENTS-5-AND-6- ARE-RESIDING-AT-NO.1026/7,-- RDD-BLOCK,-3 --CROSS,-- OPPOSITE-BROOKFIELD,-- AECS-LAYOUT,-KUNDANAHALLI,-- BANGALORE---560037.- - ...RESPONDENTS- - (BY-SRI.-PAWAN-KUMAR.,-ADVOCATE-FOR-R1-&-R2;- -------SRI.-LOKESH-K.,-ADVOCATE-FOR-R3;- -------SRI.-B-L-SANJEEV.,-ADVOCATE-FOR-R4;- ------SRI.-H-PAVANA-CHANDRA-SHETTY.,-ADVOCATE--- FOR-R5-AND-R6)- - -------THIS-W.P.-IS-FILED-UNDER-ARTICLES-226-AND- 227-OF-THE-CONSTITUTION-OF-INDIA-PRAYING-TO- DIRECT- THE- RESPONDENTS- 1- AND- 2- TO- DEMOLISH- THE- WHOLLY- ILLEGAL- AND- UNAUTHORIZED-STRUCTURES/CONSTRUCTION-IN- THE- SCHEDULE- PROPERTY,- THAT- IS- WITHOUT- BUILDING-PLAN-AND-BUILDING-LICENSE;-DIRECT- NC:(2026:KHC:35784( WP(No.(11152(of(2025( C/W(WP(No.(7282(of(2025( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( THE- RESPONDENTS- 5- AND- 6- FROM- PUTTING- UP- WHOLLY- ILLEGAL- AND- UNAUTHORIZED- STRUCTURES/CONSTRUCTION-IN-THE-SCHEDULE- PROPERTY,-THAT-IS-WITHOUT-BUILDING-PLAN-AND- BUILDING- LICENSE;- DIRECT- THE- RESPONDENT- NO.3- TO- DISCONNECT- THE- TEMPORARY- ELECTRICITY- SUPPLY- TO- THE- WHOLLY- ILLEGAL- AND- UNAUTHORIZED- STRUCTURES/- CONSTRUCTION- AND- FURTHER- DIRECT- NOT- TO- SUPPLY- PERMANENT- ELECTRICITY- TO- THE- WHOLLY- ILLEGAL- AND- UNAUTHORIZED- CONSTRUCTION- IN- THE- SCHEDULE- PROPERTY,- THAT-IS-WITHOUT-BUILDING-PLAN-AND-BUILDING- LICENSE;-DIRECT-THE-RESPONDENT-NO.4-NOT-TO- SUPPLY-WATER-AND/OR-WATER-CONNECTION-TO- THE- WHOLLY- ILLEGAL- AND- UNAUTHORIZED- CONSTRUCTION- IN- THE- SCHEDU