BENGALURU - 560 001 v. (BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

(BY SRI. JAGADEESH D.C., ADVOCATE) AND:

THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY, CENTRAL OFFICES, N.R. SQAURE, BENGALURU - 560 001. …PETITIONER

THE ASST. DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH), BBMP COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, 9TH CROSS ROAD, 9TH MAIN ROAD, 2ND BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 011. (BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:21109 WP No. 8707 of 2026 HC-KAR THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27.05.2024 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED

07.02.26 PASSED IN APPEA NO.75/2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-F BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1, AS THE SAME ARE ILLEGAL AND CANNOT BE SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYE OF LAW. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged the impugned order passed by respondent No.1, whereby the appeal of the petitioner challenging the action initiated by the Greater Bengaluru Authority (for short, 'the GBA'), concluding that the petitioner has put up a construction in violation of the sanctioned plan, has been dismissed.

2. The case of the petitioner is that she has put up construction in accordance with the sanctioned plan and - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:21109 WP No. 8707 of 2026 HC-KAR the authorities concerned, without properly measuring the same, have wrongly furnished information respondent No.1, based on which the impugned order has been passed. It is also submitted that opportunity of hearing was not granted to the petitioner by respondent No.1 while passing the impugned order.

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, upon instructions, submits that, with due notice, the property of the petitioner has been measured by the authorities concerned and they have found that the petitioner has put up construction in violation of the building bye-laws and the sanctioned plan. He further submits that the petitioner failed to co-operate at the time of measurement. He also submits that an opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner; however, in spite of it, she has not appeared before respondent No.1, and based on the pleadings and the documents produced, the impugned order has been passed. - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:21109 WP No. 8707 of 2026 HC-KAR

No person has a right to put up construction in violation of the sanctioned plan. It is essential that every person follows the law for the well-being of fellow human beings in the society. Further, this Court cannot examine disputed questions of fact in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the instant case, the disputed question of fact is whether the petitioner has been duly served with notice respect of measurement of her building and the hearing before respondent No.1. It is the case of the petitioner that she has not been served with notice, whereas it is the case of the respondents that she has been duly served with the same. However, the pleadings also reveal that the notice was duly pasted on the property, which fact has been admitted by the petitioner. Another disputed question of fact is whether the petitioner has put up construction in violation of the sanctioned plan or otherwise.

Under the circumstances, what becomes important is that, if the petitioner has put up construction - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:21109 WP No. 8707 of 2026 HC-KAR in violation of the sanctioned plan, the same is liable to be demolished.