Judgment : The owner of a residential plot in HMT Layout, Vidyaranyapura, Bangalore, having obtained prior sanction and permission of the then Bangalore Development Authority, put up construction of a residential building some time during the year 1997. It appears that the petitioner’s immovable property fell within the territorial jurisdiction of the Byatarayanapura Municipality thence the Municipality on a complaint regarding construction in violation of the building plan, is said to have initiated proceedings followed by the order dated 25-01-2006 Annexure-H directing the petitioner to demolish the unauthorised construction failing which the Municipality would take action to do so at the petitioner’s cost. Hence, this petition. 2. Pursuant to the notification issued under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, the HMT Layout fell within the territorial jurisdiction of the BBMP, during the pendency of this petition and hence, the BBMP was arraigned as party – respondents 3 to 5. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is correct in his submission that Section 187 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (for short ‘Act’) does not invest in the Municipality a power to investigate and initiate action over alleged construction in violation of the building plan sanctioned and approved by the Bangalore Development Authority and as a consequence, the order dated 25-01-2006 Annexure-H of the Municipality, must necessarily fail. A reading of sub-section (1) of Section 187 of the Act discloses that before beginning to construct a building or to alter externally or add to any existing building or to construct or reconstruct any projecting portion of a building in respect of which the Municipal Council is empowered under Section 181 of the Act to enforce a removal or a setback, or to construct or reconstruct which the Municipal Council is empowered by Section 179, the Municipal Council is to accord permission. Thus, principally, sub-section (1) of Section 187 deals with notice of new building while sub-section (2) disentitles a person from construction or reconstruction, without permission. Sub-section (3) provides for permission by the Municipal Council in accordance with the rules and bye-laws framed under the Act. Sub-section (4) empowers the Municipal Council to stall further construction activity for a period of one month while sub-section (5) empowers the Municipality to permit construction in such a manner as specified in the notice and not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. Sub-section (4) empowers the Municipal Council to stall further construction activity for a period of one month while sub-section (5) empowers the Municipality to permit construction in such a manner as specified in the notice and not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. Sub-section (6) makes it obligatory on the part of the person who intends to put up the construction not to do so after extension of period of one year on the date he was entitled to proceeding therewith unless a fresh application is made under sub-section (1). Sub-section (7) invests in the Municipal Council or Chief Officer a right to inspect any building during the construction, reconstruction or erection thereof and if he finds that the work is not in accordance with the plans or specifications or contravenes any provisions of the Act or rules or bye-laws, may issue a notice to show cause as to why such alterations should not be made and continued. If the owner shows cause, it is for the Municipal Commissioner or the Chief Officer to pass an order thereon. Sub-section (8) empowers the Municipal Commissioner or the Chief Officer to stop construction activity if such work in progress endangers human life. Sub-section (9) provides that if the Municipal Commissioner or Chief Officer is satisfied that the construction, reconstruction or erection of building has been commenced without obtaining permission of the Municipal Council or is being carried on or has been completed otherwise than in accordance with the plans or particulars on which the permission was granted or being carried on or has been completed in breach of any of the provisions of the Act or of any rule or bye-law made under the Act or of any direction or requisition lawfully given or made under the Act or such rules or bye-laws or if alterations as required by notice issued under sub-section (8) are not duly made, a provisional order may be issued requiring the owner or builder to demolish the work done, which in the opinion of the Municipal Commissioner or Chief Officer, has been unlawfully executed and bring the work into conformity with the Act, rule or bye-laws, direction or requisition as aforestated or with the plans or particulars on which such permission was based. Clause (b) requires the Municipal Commissioner or the Chief Officer to serve a copy of the provisional order made under clause (a) on the owner of the building requiring him to show-cause within a reasonable time, not less than three days, to be specified in the notice why the order should not be confirmed. If the owner fails to show-cause to the satisfaction of the Municipal Commissioner or Chief Officer, he may confirm the order with any modification he may think fit which is binding on the owner. 4. The power invested in the Chief Officer or Commissioner under Section 187 therefore relates to action to be initiated for unauthorised construction of a building contrary to the provisions of the Act, rules and bye-laws or the plan sanctioned by the authority under sub-section (1) of Section 187. In the admitted facts of the case, the petitioner had obtained prior permission and sanction of the building plan from Bangalore Development Authority to erect the construction when the immovable property fell within its jurisdiction. Thus, it is not a case of construction, reconstruction or alternation or addition to the building by the petitioner when the property fell within the territorial jurisdiction of the Byatarayanapura Municipality constituted under the Act. If that is so, it is impermissible to hold that the Byatarayanapura Municipality had a jurisdiction to question the petitioner over the construction of the building of which plan was approved and sanctioned by the BDA. In my opinion, the very initiation of the proceedings by the Municipality is incompetent and the final order Annexure-H is illegal and unsustainable. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondent–BBMP submits that liberty be reserved to the BBMP, under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 and rules made thereunder to initiate action for alleged unauthorised construction of the building by the petitioner. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The order Annexure-H and the notice preceding it is quashed. Liberty is reserved to the BBMP to take action in respect of the building erected by the petitioner if not in conformity with the plan of the building duly sanctioned, strictly in accordance with the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 and rules made thereunder.