Sri Muniyan G v. Greater Bengaluru Authority

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 23663 OF 2026 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN:

¶1SRI MUNIYAN G S/OLATE GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶2SRI SANDEEP KUMAR M, S/O SRI MUNIYAN G, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.20/2, BALA YESU CHURCH MAIN ROAD, LR NAGAR MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU 560 047. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. K S NARESH SANTHOSH., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶1GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, JC ROAD, BENGALURU 560 001.

¶2THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, GBA, DOMLUR SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU. - 560 071 Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA -e2e-e ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:40337( WP(No.(23663(of(2026( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010523352026( ( (

3.-THE-ADDITIONAL-DIRECTOR--OF-TOWN-PLANNING,-CENTRAL-HEAD-OFFICE,--N-R-SQUARE,-BENGALURU.-560-002.--…RESPONDENTS-(BY-SRI.PAWAN-KUMAR.,-ADVOCATE)---THIS-WP-IS-FILED-UNDER-ARTICLES-226-AND-227-OF-THE-CONSTITUTION-OF-INDIA-PRAYING-TO-QUASHING-THE-ORDER-DATED-29.5.2026-IN-PROJECT-NO.GBA/BCCC/0207/26-27-ISSUED-BY-THE-RESPONDENTS,-A-COPY-OF-WHICH-IS-PRODUCED-AT-ANNEXURE-T-AND-DIRECT-THE-RESPONDENTS-TO-GRANT-THE-PLAN-EXPEDITIOUSLY-AND-TILL-THEN-NOT-TO-STALL-THE-CONSTRUCTION,-TO-MEET-THE-ENDS-OF-JUSTICE;-(II)-DIRECTING-THE-RESPONDENTS-TO-CONSIDER-THE-REPRESENTATIONS-DATED-9.7.2026,-COPIES-OF-WHICH-ARE-PRODUCED-AT-ANNEXURES-U-AND-V-RESPECTIVELY-AND-DISPOSE-OF-THE-SAME-EXPEDITIOUSLY-AND-TILL-THEN-NOT-TO-DISTURB-THE-CONSTRUCTION-BY-THE-PETITIONERS.---THIS-PETITION,-COMING-ON-FOR-PRELIMINARY-HEARING,-THIS-DAY,-ORDER-WAS-MADE-THEREIN-AS-UNDER:-CORAM:-HON'BLE-MR.-JUSTICE-B-M-SHYAM-PRASAD----

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners assert ownership of the property No.20/2, EPID No.69-44-20/02, Balaiah Naidu Street of Jodi Sonnenahalli Village, Bengaluru presently Ward No.115, Vannarpet [the subject property]. The petitioners' grievance is with the Communication dated 29.05.2026 – a Shortfall Letter [Annexure-T]. The Greater Bengaluru Authority has issued this Communication informing the petitioners that their application for approval of a building plan is rejected because of a complaint pending with a Court.

¶2Sri K S Naresh Santhosh, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits [a] that the petitioners' vendor, Ms. Raichal Prameela, was given the benefit of Sanction in LP No. 82/17-18 which was valid between 21.12.2017 and 20.12.2019, [b] that the vendor began the construction but could not complete the construction because of financial difficulties, [c] that the petitioners have purchased

the subject property with incomplete construction on

16.07.2025, [d] that the petitioners were constrained to invoke this Court's jurisdiction in the writ petition in W.P. No.494/2026 for directions to renew the Plan sanctioned, [e] that the present communication is notwithstanding specific directions by this Court while disposing of this writ petition in W.P. No.494/2026.

¶3Sri Pawan Kumar, a learned standing counsel for the respondents who is called upon to accept notice for the respondents, is heard in the light of the afore for the disposal of the petition with just conditions. This Court's directions in the writ petition in W.P. No.494/2026 in its material part reads as under: "(ii) The notice dated 24.12.2025 bearing No.Sa.Ka.Aa/Do.U/No/2025-26/321 issued by respondent No.2 at Annexure-P is quashed.

(iii) A mandamus is issued directing the respondents to consider the application of the petitioners dated

21.12.2024 at Annexure-N within a period of 60 days in accordance with law.

(iv) Until then, the petitioners shall not carry on any construction. In the event of plan sanction being granted, then the petitioners would be permitted to carry on the construction as per the plan sanction granted."

¶4When queried on who could now examine the petitioners' application for renewal/approval of the building plan, which has expired on 20.12.2019, Sri Pawan Kumar submits that because the proposed construction is not a high-rise building, it will be by the jurisdictional Assistant Director of Town Planning. This Court's query is because the writ petition in W.P. No.494/2026 is disposed of with directions as afore in view of the submissions that the application for renewal would be considered. The

petitioner's application is rejected despite this statement before this Court and the terms of disposal. There must be interference for an early decision. Hence, the following. ORDER [A] The petition stands disposed of. [B] The petitioners are reserved with liberty to file a certified copy of this Order along with all the details of the submissions made for renewal of a Building Plan to commence construction of the subject property including a copy of the Sanction Plan in LP No. 82/17-18. [C] The petitioners are reserved with liberty to file these documents, within a week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order, with the jurisdictional Assistant Director of Town Planning who shall ensure that the documents are examined and a demand is raised within the next four [4] weeks. SD/-(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE AN/-