SHRI SHAILESH CHARATI vs COMMISSIONER

- 1 -
WA No. 1672 of 2025


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 17 DAY OF OCTOBER 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

AND


THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN

WRIT APPEAL NO. 1672 OF 2025 (LB-BMP)


BETWEEN:


1. SHRI SHAILESH CHARATI
S/O. BASAVAPRABHU CHARATI,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
FLAT NO. 5P105, ARYA HAMSA APARTMENTS,
TH
J. P. NAGAR 8 PHASE,
BENGALURU-560 083.







2. SHRI. VISHWAS AVATHI GUNDURAO
S/O. AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
FLAT NO. 2D104, ARYA HAMSA APARTMENTS,
TH
J. P. NAGAR, 8 PHASE,
BENGALURU-560 083.

3. SHRI. RAGHUNANDAN. K. V.
S/O. VENKATESH MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
FLAT NO. 5M402, ARYA HAMSA APARTMENTS,
J. P. NAGAR, 8TH PHASE,
BENGALURU-560 083.

4. SHRI. AMARINDER SINGH
S/O. MR. GURDEVE SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
FLAT NO. A 109, BRIGADE MILLENIUM,
TH
J. P. NAGAR 7 PHASE,
BENGALURU-560 083.





Digitally
signed by
MALA K N
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
WA No. 1672 of 2025


5. SMT. VILASINI RAMKUMAR
W/O. RAMKUMAR GOPALAN,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
FLAT NO. 2A701, ARYA HAMSA APARTMENTS,
TH
J. P. NAGAR 8 PHASE,
BENGALURU-560 083.

6. KRISHNA MANJESHWAR PADAKANNAYA
S/O. SUBRAMANYA PADAKANNAYA,
FLAT NO. 3B, 302, ARYA HAMSA APARTMENTS,
TH
J. P. NAGAR 8 PHASE,
BENGALURU-560 083.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. VIDYADHAR M. DURGEKAR, ADVOCATE)


AND:

1. COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP),
N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002.

2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
BBMP GOTTIGERE WARD (194),
ST TH
1 MAIN ROAD, J. P. NAGAR, 8 PHASE,
BENGALURU-560 083.

3. COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (BDA),
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 020.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MONESH KUMAR K.B.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. D.R.RAVI SHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. LOKESH L.N, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. G.V.SUDHAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR
IMPLEADING APPLICANT IN IA 1/26)


THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO A) ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND
KINDLY SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01/07/2025
OF THE SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.15386/2025 AND B)
CONSEQUENTLY KINDLY ISSUE THE WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO

- 3 -
WA No. 1672 of 2025


ALL THREE RESPONDENTS TO TAKE NECESSARY ACTION TO
DEMOLISH THE COMPLETED ILLEGAL BUILDING IN THE
TH
SURVEY NO.28/3 IN J.P. NAGAR 8 PHASE MARKED AS OPEN
SPACE IN THE RMP 2015 APPROVED BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.3 WITH SPECIFIED TIMELINE TO COMPLY WITH THE
HON’BLE SUPREME COURT GUIDELINE LAID DOWN IN
RAJENDRA KUMAR BARAJATIYA VS U.P AVAS EVAM VIKAS
PARISHAD AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 09.09.2026 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN


CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN)
A person seeking relief from this Court must
approach the Court with clear, specific and correct facts.
The petitioner is required to verify the relevant records,
exercise due diligence and place the complete factual
position before the Court. Vague averments or general
allegations, particularly against public authorities,
without proper verification cannot form the basis for
granting relief. In the present case, we express our
displeasure at the manner in which the proceedings have
been instituted and allegations have been made against
the authorities without adequate verification of the
relevant records. The material placed before us does not
substantiate the allegations in the manner in which they
have been pleaded. Such an approach has resulted in

- 4 -
WA No. 1672 of 2025


unnecessary proceedings and has consumed valuable
judicial time. Having regard to the manner in which the
proceedings have been pursued and the lack of due
diligence on the part of the petitioners, we deem it
appropriate to impose costs of Rs.1,00,000/- upon the
petitioners .
This intra-court appeal has been filed by petitioners in
W.P.No.15386/2025 (LB-BMP), wherein the learned Single
Judge, vide order 01.07.2025 had disposed of the petition with
a direction to the respondent/BBMP to conclude the
proceedings in accordance with the procedure prescribed under
Section 248 of BBMP Act, 2020.
2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per
their ranking before the learned Single Judge.
3. The petitioners are residents of Arya Hamsa
th
Apartments, J.P.Nagar 8 Phase, Bengaluru, and members of
the Arya Hamsa Apartment Owners Co-operative Society. They
are aggrieved by the alleged unauthorized construction being
put up in a portion of Sy.No.28/3 of Kothanur Village,
Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, which, according to
the petitioners, is shown as “Open Space/Park” in the Revised
Master Plan, 2015 approved by the Bangalore Development

- 5 -
WA No. 1672 of 2025


Authority. The petitioners state that in October 2024, certain
persons entered the said open space after breaking the existing
fence and commenced levelling, marking and digging for
construction of columns. According to them, the construction
was being carried out without any sanctioned plan and the area
earmarked as open space could not be utilised for such
construction.
4. The petitioners further state that, being the
adjoining residents directly affected by the alleged construction,
the Arya Hamsa Apartment Owners Co-operative Society
submitted a complaint dated 29.10.2024 to the Assistant
Executive Engineer, BBMP, Gottigere Ward. Complaints were
also addressed to the Assistant Director, Town Planning,
Commissioner, BBMP and Commissioner, BDA. The Assistant
Director, Town Planning, by communication dated 26.12.2024,
directed the Assistant Executive Engineer to take action.
According to the petitioners, however, the construction
continued. They also relied upon the RMP-2015 and the RTI
response from BBMP stating that there was violation in respect
of the construction and that action under Section 248 of the
BBMP Act, 2020 was required. Since, according to them, no
effective action was taken, they approached this Court seeking

- 6 -
WA No. 1672 of 2025


protection of the open space and action against the alleged
unauthorised construction.
5. The learned Single Judge, upon consideration of the
pleadings and the material placed on record and after hearing
the learned counsel appearing for the parties, disposed of the
writ petition. The learned Single Judge noticed that the learned
counsel appearing for the BBMP had placed on record a
provisional order passed under Section 248(1) of the BBMP Act,
2020, along with the receipt evidencing compliance with
Section 248(2) of the said Act. Taking note of the same, the
learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the grievance of
the petitioners had been duly addressed by the competent
authority and that no further adjudication was warranted.
Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to
the BBMP to conclude the proceedings in accordance with the
procedure prescribed under Section 248 of the BBMP Act, 2020.
6. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have
preferred the present intra-court appeal. It is contended that
the writ petition came to be disposed of merely on the ground
that the BBMP had issued a provisional order under Section 248
of the BBMP Act, 2020, without examining the substantive

- 7 -
WA No. 1672 of 2025


questions of law and the constitutional issues raised by them. It
is further contended that the impugned order does not address
the reliefs sought in the writ petition and that the
communication dated 11.02.2025 issued by the BBMP does not
answer the prayer seeking cessation of the construction on
Sy.No.28/3, which, according to the petitioners, is earmarked
as open space, or the enforcement of the provisions of the
Karnataka Parks, Playfields and Open Spaces (Preservation and
Regulation) Act, 1985.
7. It is also contended that the grievance of the
petitioners was not confined to administrative inaction but
related to the alleged violation of their fundamental right under
Article 21 of the Constitution to a clean and healthy
environment. The petitioners further contend that during the
pendency of the proceedings the construction on the said open
space had been completed and a school had commenced
functioning therein. On these grounds, they seek setting aside
of the order passed by the learned Single Judge and a direction
to the respondents to take necessary action, including
demolition of the completed construction put up on Sy.No.28/3,
J.P. Nagar, 8th Phase, Bengaluru, which, according to them, is
earmarked as open space under the RMP-2015.

- 8 -
WA No. 1672 of 2025


8. We have heard Sri.Vidyadhar M.Durgekar, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Sri.Monesh
Kumar, learned counsel for respondents/BBMP, Sri.B.S.Sachin,
learned counsel for respondent No.3/BDA and
Sri.D.R.Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
impleading applicant and perused the pleadings, the entire
material placed on record and the order passed by the learned
Single Judge.
9. The question that arises for consideration in this
appeal is, whether the order passed by the learned Single
Judge calls for interference by this Court?
10. During the course of hearing of the present writ
appeal, having regard to the issues raised in respect of the
alleged encroachment and construction over Sy.No.28/3, this
Court directed the Commissioner, Greater Bengaluru Authority,
to place on record an affidavit and to make the stand of the
Authority clear with regard to the entire issue. In compliance
with the said direction, Mr. Maheshwara Rao, M. IAS, Chief
Commissioner, Greater Bengaluru Authority, filed his affidavit
dated 25.03.2026. The affidavit refers to the reliefs sought by
the petitioners, including cessation of the alleged unauthorised

- 9 -
WA No. 1672 of 2025


construction in Sy.No.28/3, enforcement of the Karnataka
Parks, Playfields and Open Spaces (Preservation and
Regulation) Act, 1985 and the BBMP Act, 2020, and action
against the alleged unauthorised construction. The affidavit also
refers to the provisional order passed under Section 248 of the
BBMP Act, 2020 and sets out the stand of the Authority with
regard to the action taken in the matter.
11. During the pendency of the appeal, by order dated
09.04.2026, this Court directed the Commissioner, BBMP, to
demolish every unauthorised or illegal construction put up on
the alleged open space/public park in Sy.No.28/3, Kothanur
Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, and to submit
a compliance report. The BBMP was also permitted to seek
police assistance, if required, for removal of the encroachment
or unauthorised construction. Pursuant thereto, an application
for impleadment under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section
151 of the CPC was filed seeking impleadment as respondent
Nos.4 and 5. An application under Section 151 of the CPC was
also filed seeking recall of the order dated 09.04.2026,
particularly the direction relating to demolition.

- 10 -
WA No. 1672 of 2025


12. The impleading applicants state that the subject
property forms part of Sy.No.28/3 of Kothanur Village,
Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. According to them,
the original owner, Sri V. Natarajan Chettair, was the owner of
5 acres 31 guntas in the said survey number and had obtained
conversion of the land from agricultural to non-agricultural
residential use by conversion order dated 17.11.1999. It is
their case that Sri Lakshman, as GPA holder of Sri V. Natarajan
Chettair and other landowners, formed a residential layout
known as “Royal County” in Sy.No.28/3 and other lands, which
was approved by the Bangalore Development Authority on
15.11.2000 and subsequently modified on 11.11.2002. They
further state that the BDA released Site Nos.677, 678, 679 and
680 under its communication dated 29.01.2002. According to
the applicants, Sri V. Natarajan Chettair thereafter gifted the
said sites to his daughter, Dr. Vasavi Rangadham, under Gift
Deed dated 22.08.2007. The khatha was thereafter registered
in her name by the BDA and, after the property came within
the limits of BBMP, taxes were being paid to the BBMP.
13. The applicants rely upon the approved layout and
the subsequent release of the sites by the BDA to contend that
the sites were already formed and released by the competent

- 11 -
WA No. 1672 of 2025


authority and, therefore, dispute the allegation that the
construction amounts to encroachment upon an open space or
public park. They refer to the BDA-approved layout, site-
release proceedings and subsequent title documents in support
of their claim over the subject sites. They contend that their
rights and interests would be directly affected by the order of
demolition and that they ought to be heard before any coercive
action is taken.
14. In view of the applications for impleadment and
recall, the matter was reconsidered and the demolition fixed for
22.04.2026 was postponed. This Court thereafter directed the
BBMP, if the persons who had allegedly put up the unauthorised
construction by encroaching upon the open space/public park
were identified, to issue notice of hearing and serve the same
by hand. The persons who had allegedly encroached upon the
public open space/public park and had sought impleadment
were directed to appear before the BBMP on 21.04.2026. The
BBMP was directed to hear them and take a decision thereafter
and, if it found encroachment upon the open space/public park,
to proceed in accordance with law and carry out demolition.
The BBMP was also directed to file a compliance report.
Subsequently, this Court directed the Commissioner, BDA, to

- 12 -
WA No. 1672 of 2025


make its stand clear on affidavit with regard to the alleged
encroachment upon the open space/public park in Sy.No.28/3
and directed the BBMP to file a report on affidavit regarding the
finding arrived at after hearing the concerned parties.
15. In compliance with the aforesaid order, the
Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, filed an
affidavit placing on record the stand of the Authority with
regard to the official noting relied upon by the petitioners
concerning the park/open space shown in a portion of
Sy.No.28/3. It is stated that, upon verification of the records
maintained by the Bangalore Development Authority and
examination of the relevant records by the officers concerned,
the lands comprising Sy.Nos.8/3, 13/1, 13/2, 16/2, 28/3,
30(p), 31/1, 31/2, 31/3, 31/4, 31/5, 6A, 6B, 7, 10, 32/1, 32/2,
35/1, 35/2, 35/3, 31/4, 36/4, 36/7 and 39/2, measuring about
55 acres and 05 guntas, were proposed for development of a
private residential layout under the 70:30 scheme pursuant to
the Government Order dated 17.11.1995.
16. It is further stated that the proposal was placed
before the Bangalore Development Authority and, in the
meeting held on 29.09.2000, the Authority approved the

- 13 -
WA No. 1672 of 2025


residential layout subject to the conditions applicable to a
private layout, including compliance with the 70:30 scheme.
According to the affidavit, during execution of the layout,
certain changes occurred having regard to the physical features
and topography of the land. The changes were examined and
necessary modifications were proposed while maintaining the
prescribed land-use requirements. The affidavit specifically
states that the park/open space was originally shown in a
portion of Sy.No.28/3 and also in a portion of Sy.No.30(P), and
that during execution of the layout, the portion of park/open
space shown in Sy.No.28/3 was shifted to a portion of
Sy.No.30(P), which also formed part of the same layout. The
Authority states that the change was brought before the BDA
and considered along with the proposal for approval of the
modified layout.
17. The Commissioner has further stated that the
official noting relied upon by the petitioners has to be read in
the context of the subsequent examination of the layout,
including the report of the Engineering Section, the land-use
statement and the proceedings before the competent authority,
and cannot be considered in isolation. It is also stated that,
even prior to approval of the modified layout, certain sites

- 14 -
WA No. 1672 of 2025


formed in the portion of the layout pertaining to Sy.No.28/3
had already been released in favour of the GPA holder. In
particular, Site Nos.677, 678, 679 and 680, along with other
sites, were released under the 70:30 scheme, as reflected in
the records maintained by the BDA.
18. The affidavit further states that the modified layout
plan was placed before the competent committee, which
examined the original layout, the layout as executed, the
proposed changes, the Engineering Section report and the
applicable regulations. Upon such examination, the modified
residential layout was approved by resolution dated
19.10.2002, subject to the conditions stipulated therein, and
the modified plan was thereafter approved by the
Commissioner on 11.11.2002. The stand of the Authority is that
the requirement relating to the prescribed park/open space was
not deleted, but the modification related to its representation or
configuration within the layout. The modified layout plan
reflected the changes which had occurred during execution of
the layout and which were thereafter considered and approved
by the competent authority.

- 15 -
WA No. 1672 of 2025


19. With regard to the Revised Master Plan–2015, the
Commissioner has stated that the original approval of the
layout as well as the subsequent approval of the modified
layout were granted prior to the coming into force of the
Revised Master Plan–2015. Reliance is placed upon Regulation
3.16 of the Zonal Regulations, 2015, in support of the
contention that permissions already accorded by the Bangalore
Development Authority or the Government are required to be
considered in the light of the said provision. The relevant
records, including the modified layout plan and the documents
relating to the approval, have been placed before this Court
along with the affidavit.
20. The Assistant Executive Engineer, South Division,
Bangalore Development Authority, has also referred to the
communication dated 15.06.2026 addressed to the Bengaluru
South City Corporation regarding Site Nos.677, 678, 679 and
680 in Sy.No.28/3. In the said communication, upon
verification of the official records, the BDA stated that the
layout had been approved under the 70:30 scheme and that
the Commissioner, BDA, had approved the layout plan vide
proceedings dated 11.11.2002. It was further stated that the
said sites had been formed in the approved layout and that

- 16 -
WA No. 1672 of 2025


khatha had been issued in respect thereof on 05.11.2007. The
communication further records that the BDA records did not
show the said sites as reserved for park, playground or open
space and that the sites had been released under the approved
70:30 layout.
21. We have considered the affidavit filed by the Chief
Commissioner, Greater Bengaluru Authority, the affidavit filed
on behalf of the Bangalore Development Authority, the
report/affidavit of the Assistant Executive Engineer, BBMP, the
pleadings, the documents, the applications filed by the
impleading applicants and the records produced by the BDA
and the impleading applicants. The material placed before us
shows that the sites in question were formed and released
pursuant to the layout approved by the Bangalore Development
Authority. The material does not establish the allegation that
the impleading applicants have encroached upon the park or
open space in Sy.No.28/3.
22. The records further disclose that certain changes
were made in the layout during its execution having regard to
the physical features and topography of the land and that those
changes were thereafter considered by the competent authority

- 17 -
WA No. 1672 of 2025


while approving the modified layout. Under the modified layout,
the park/open space shown originally in a portion of Sy.No.28/3
was shifted to a portion of Sy.No.30(P), which also formed part
of the same layout. The requirement relating to park/open
space was not deleted; the modification was with regard to its
location within the larger layout. The modified layout was
thereafter approved by the competent authority and the sites of
the impleading applicants formed part of the approved and
released layout.
23. The reliance placed upon Regulation 3.16 of the
Zonal Regulations, 2015 also assumes significance. The
permissions already accorded by the competent planning
authority or the Government are required to be considered in
accordance with the said provision, notwithstanding the
classification subsequently reflected in the Revised Master Plan,
2015. The subsequent communication dated 15.06.2026 issued
by the Bangalore Development Authority, upon verification of
its records, also records the approval of the layout and the
release of Site Nos.677, 678, 679 and 680 and does not show
the said sites as reserved for park, playground or open space.

- 18 -
WA No. 1672 of 2025


24. In view of the above material, the very foundation
on which the writ petition and the present appeal proceed,
namely, that the construction put up on the sites of the
impleading applicants constitutes encroachment upon a
park/open space in Sy.No.28/3, is not borne out by the records
placed before us. The writ petition, therefore, does not call for
the relief sought by the petitioners. Consequently, we find no
ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single
Judge and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
25. This Court was, at the first instance, inclined to
impose a heavy cost of Rs.5,00,000/- upon the petitioner for
having approached this Court without properly verifying the
records, without exercising the necessary due diligence and by
making allegations against the authorities which were not
borne out by the material placed on record. Such a manner of
approaching the Court has resulted not only in unnecessary
proceedings but also in consumption of valuable judicial time.
However, taking a lenient view of the matter, we refrain from
imposing the proposed cost of Rs.5,00,000/- and confine the
cost to Rs.1,00,000/- . The petitioner, having instituted the
proceedings in the year 2025, was expected to verify the
records and ascertain the factual position before making

- 19 -
WA No. 1672 of 2025


serious allegations against the authorities and pursuing the
matter before this Court. In the circumstances, we deem it
appropriate to impose a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- upon the
petitioner .

26. The petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) towards costs with the
Air Force Command Hospital and produce the receipt
evidencing such payment before the Registry of this Court
within a period of one month from today. Upon production of
the receipt, the Registry shall place the same on record. The
appeal shall thereafter be listed before this Court after the
expiry of the said period of one month, along with the receipt
evidencing payment of the aforesaid cost, for passing further
necessary orders.

Accordingly, we pass the following;
ORDER
The Writ Appeal stands dismissed , subject to the
aforesaid direction regarding costs.

We place on record our appreciation for the assistance
rendered by the learned counsel appearing for the authorities.
They have placed before us the relevant records, facts and

- 20 -
WA No. 1672 of 2025


assisted the Court in bringing out the correct factual position.
Their assistance has enabled us to examine the matter in its
proper perspective and has considerably facilitated the Court in
arriving at the conclusions recorded in this judgment.

Pending I.As. stand disposed of.

Sd/-
(D K SINGH)
JUDGE


Sd/-
(H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN)
JUDGE

KNM