DEFENCE COLONY RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION vs THE COMMISSIONER

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58453
WP No. 33694 of 2025



CNR: KAHC010723472025






IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026




BEFORE


THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD


WRIT PETITION NO. 33694 OF 2025 (LB-BMP)





BETWEEN:

1. DEFENCE COLONY RESIDENTS
ASSOCIATION (DECORA), 191/1,
6TH MAIN, DEFENCE COLONY,
INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU 560 038.
REGISTERED UNDER
THE KARNATAKA SOCIETIES ACT, 1960.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,
NARESH J D'MELLO.
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

2. AMITABH SHARMA
S/O MR. V.N. SHARMA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT 128, 4TH MAIN DEFENCE COLONY
INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE 560 038.

3. AMITAVA BANERJEE
S/O MR. BANERJEE,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
R/AT FLAT NO. 101, MARVEL VIENTO
227, DEFENCE COLONY, 2ND MAIN 6TH CROSS
INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE 560 038.






















Digitally
signed by
VANAMALA N
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58453
WP No. 33694 of 2025



CNR: KAHC010723472025


4. DEEPSHIKHA KHOSLA
D/O P. K. DEY,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 66, DEFENCE COLONY,
100 FEET ROAD, 6TH MAIN,
INDIRANAGAR,
BANGALORE560 038.

5. MADHURA SWAMINATHAN
W/O V.K. RAMACHANDRAN
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
R/AT NO.-01, 1ST FLOOR,
1ST MAIN ROAD DOMLUR, INDIRANAGAR,
BANGALORE 560 071.

6. NAMASIVAYAM VEDAMOORTHY,
S/O VEEDAMOORTHY PM,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
R/AT NO.226 VILASAM,
6TH CROSS DEFENCE COLONY,
INDIRANAGAR,
BANGALORE 560 038.

7. REBECCA NINAN ABRAHAM,
W/O MR. THOMAS ABRAHAM,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/AT 233, 6TH CROSS,
DEFENCE COLONY, INDIRANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 038.

8. SARITA MARY ALEXANDER
W/O NAMASIVAYAM VEDAMOORTHY
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT NO.226 VILASAM,
6TH CROSS DEFENCE COLONY,
INDIRANAGAR,

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58453
WP No. 33694 of 2025



CNR: KAHC010723472025


BANGALORE 560 038.

…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. HIRAN KRISHNASWAMY.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU CENTRAL CITY CORPORATION,
N.R SQUARE, BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA 560002, INDIA.

2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING BENGALURU CENTRAL CITY
CORPORATION, PUBLIC UTILITY BUILDING,
MG ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
BRUHATH BENGALURU CENTRAL CITY
CORPORATION, 3RD MAIN,
DEFENCE COLONCY, INDIRANAGAR,
BANGALORE 560 038.

4. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR
GENERAL OF POLICE,
BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TASK FORCE,
1ST FLOOR, NR SQUARE,
SAMPANGI RAMA NAGAR,
BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA 560027.

5. OUM PRADUTT SHOURY ARYA,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
R/AT FLAT NO. 003, FARAH COURT,
NO. 185, 5TH MAIN,

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58453
WP No. 33694 of 2025



CNR: KAHC010723472025


DEFENCE COLONY, INDIRANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 038.
…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.VAIBHAV MALIMATH., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO
R3; VIDE ORDER DATED 21.11.2025 R4 IS DELETED;
SRI. S. SREEVATSA., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. MURALI., N ADVOCATE FOR R5)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO
INITIATE APPROPRIATE ACTION AGAINST THE ILLEGAL
STRUCTURE BEING PUT UP BY THE RESPONDENT NO.
5 AND TO CONSEQUENTLY DEMOLISH THE SAID
CONSTRUCTION PUT UP ILLEGALLY IN
CONTRAVENTION OF THE SANCTION PLAN VIDE ANNX-
C1; 2) DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NOS. 1-4 TO
CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 12.12.2024
(ANNEXURE D), 19.03.2025 (ANNEXURE E) AND
25.09.2025 (ANNEXURE F) AND TO CONSEQUENTLY
INITIATE THE APPROPRIATE ACTION; 3) DIRECTING
THE RESPONDENT NO. 4 TO REMOVE THE
ENCROACHMENTS ON THE PUBLIC ROAD AND THE
FOOTPATH.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58453
WP No. 33694 of 2025



CNR: KAHC010723472025


ORAL ORDER

The petitioners are residents of Defense Colony,
Indiranagar, Bengaluru Bengaluru – 560 038 and an
association of the residents of this locality. The
petitioners’ grievance is with the authorities' failure to
act against alleged illegal construction by the fifth
respondent. The petitioners seek directions to the
authorities to act on their representations
[ Annexures-D to F ] to remove the illegal structure
[ deviations from the sanctioned plan ] and the
encroachment that could be of the public road and
the footpath.

2. This Court, on 11.11.2025, while calling
upon the learned standing counsel for the first to
third respondents [ the authorities ] to secure
instructions on whether the construction by the fifth
respondent is in accordance with the Sanctioned Plan
or not, has directed the third respondent to take
immediate steps to stop the construction and if need

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58453
WP No. 33694 of 2025



CNR: KAHC010723472025


be with the assistance of the local police to inspect
with the assistance of the local police. Sri. Vaibhav R.
Malimath, a learned standing counsel for the first to
third respondents, on the previous hearing date has
filed Report dated 06.12.2025 stating that:
[a] the deviation by the respondent who
is admitted to a Sanctioned Plan is
only in the setback on one side,
[b] the deviation is below 5%, and
[c] in view of the Notification dated
14.05.2026, deviation in the setback
can be compounded subject to two
conditions, viz . the total deviation in
the setback being not beyond 15%
and the setback on any one side also
not being beyond 15%.

3. Sri. S. Sreevatsa, the learned Senior
Counsel for the fifth respondent, in the light of this
Report, has placed on record a photograph to assert

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58453
WP No. 33694 of 2025



CNR: KAHC010723472025


that the deviation of 5% is with reference to a canopy
in the front of the building and that this will be
within the fifth respondent's property line. This Court
has reserved liberty to the fifth respondent to take a
stand on whether the canopy could be reduced so
that there is no allegation of deviation in the setback
by the projection.

4. Sri. S. Sreevatsa, in terms of this liberty,
places on record photographs stating that a portion
of the canopy is removed and it is brought 3 feet
within the property line, but the learned Senior
Counsel, who does not contest that even with this
reduction will not address the deviation from the
Sanctioned Plan, asserts that the deviation is further
reduced from 5%.


5. Sri Hiran Krishnaswamy, the learned
counsel for the petitioners, and Sri Vaibhav R.
Malimath, are heard in the light of this turn of

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58453
WP No. 33694 of 2025



CNR: KAHC010723472025


events. Sri Vaibhav R. Malimath submits that the
proceedings in the present petition has proceeded
rather smoothly and that it is possible that the fifth
respondent, after the inspection in December 2025,
has put up further construction which could be
contrary to the Sanctioned Plan and that the disposal
of the petition must not foreclose the proceedings
that could be under the provisions of the Greater
Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024 [for short, ‘the GBG
Act’ ] to ensure that the construction is only in
accordance with the Sanctioned Plan, or that this
Court could permit the Authorities to file another
Report.

6. These submissions are echoed by Sri
Hiran Krishnaswamy stating that he can also justify
the petitioners' locus to sustain the petition
notwithstanding the fact that none of the private
individual petitioners are owners of the property in
the immediate vicinity of the fifth respondent's

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58453
WP No. 33694 of 2025



CNR: KAHC010723472025


property and that the first petitioner is a Welfare
Association. However, the apprehension is examined
in the light of the fact that the fourth respondent was
required to stop construction in all these months
under the interim orders of this Court.

7. The fifth respondent, who is admitted to a
Sanctioned Plan, beyond any doubt, can only
construct in accordance with the Sanctioned Plan
and it is equally beyond doubt is the jurisdiction in
the authorities, who have not yet issued any notice to
the fourth respondent, to take action upon inspection
and opportunity as contemplated under Section 243
of the GBG Act even at this stage if there is reason to
prima facie opine that the fifth respondent has
deviated even otherwise from the Sanctioned Plan.


8. At this stage, this Court is persuaded to
dispose of the petition without any further orders in

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58453
WP No. 33694 of 2025



CNR: KAHC010723472025


the light of these afore circumstances, and the next
two following circumstances:

 The authorities have inspected the
property and filed a Report into the Court
stating that the deviation by the fifth
respondent is in the setback on the one
side of the construction and that this
deviation is below 5% and below.

 The fifth respondent is stated before this
Court that the width of the canopy - the
projection which impels the authorities to
report a 5% deviation - is removed
partially bringing the edge of the canopy
within 3 feet from the edge of his
property.

Further, this Court must observe that in the
circumstances the question of petitioner's locus need
not be examined and could be examined in an

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58453
WP No. 33694 of 2025



CNR: KAHC010723472025


appropriate case if there is occasion while also
observing that the outcome in this petition is not a
vindication of the petitioner's locus or the lack
thereof. In the light of the afore, the petition stands
disposed of, the following:
ORDER
The petition stands disposed of without
prejudice to the authorities to initiate
proceedings for inspection and action
under Section 243 of the GBG Act if there
is any deviation by the fifth respondent
beyond what is now stated.


SD/-
(B M SHYAM PRASAD)
JUDGE

SA
Ct:sr