- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6778 WP No. 1066 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 1066 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. SMT UMA PRASAD W/O PRASAD K, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, NO 28, 3RD CROSS, DODDAKEMAPAIAH LAYOUT, HALAGEVADERAHALLI, RAJARAJESHWARINAGARA, BENGALURU 560098 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BENGALURU 560026. 2. THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, CORPORATION OFFICE, N R SQUARE, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU 560002. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER RAJARAJESHWARINAGARA SUB DIVISION, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BENGALURU 560098 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SINCHANA M R., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6778 WP No. 1066 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED- 16-11-2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-K PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT IN APPEAL NO. 159 OF 2024 CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THIRD RESPONDENT IN NO-AEE/RRNSD/CO/03/2023/24, DATED-08-02- 2024 PASSED UNDER SECTION 248(3) OF THE B.B.M.P ACT, 2020, VIDE ANNEXURE-J BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE PETITION, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Appellate Authority by which an order of confirmation passed under Section 248(3) of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 has been upheld. 2. The provisional order was passed on the premise that there was violation to the extent of 100% in respect of setbacks pertaining to front, rear and right side of the plot and to the extent of 60% to the left side of the property. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6778 WP No. 1066 of 2025 3. It was also alleged that there was deviation to an extent of 24.18% in respect of Floor Area Ratio and an extent of 75.48% in respect of coverage. 4. This Court, during the pendency of this writ petition, passed an interim order on 20.01.2025 taking note of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that without conducting the spot inspection, findings had been recorded by the Authorities regarding setback violations. 5. This Court accordingly directed the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike ('the BBMP') to conduct a joint inspection on 28.01.2025, in the presence of the petitioners, and submit a report. 6. A joint inspection was conducted in accordance with the said order and a report has been filed in which it is stated that the average violation was only to the extent of 35.84%. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6778 WP No. 1066 of 2025 7. It is therefore clear that the violations pointed out in the provisional order and the violations now recorded are vastly different from each other. It is also stated that the construction in question was of the year 2012-13. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner would be entitled to seek for regularisation since the premises in question is a residential premises and the percentage of deviation pointed out is less than 50%, if the Hon’ble Supreme Court upholds the provisions which permit regularization. 9. In that view of the matter, the impugned orders would not be sustainable, firstly, because there was a vast difference between the provisional order and the report that is now produced regarding the extent of violation, secondly, because the petitioner may have a right to seek for regularization if the Apex Court upholds the provisions for regularization and - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6778 WP No. 1066 of 2025 that right of the petitioner to seek for regularization cannot be frustrated. The impugned orders are therefore quashed. 10. In the event the Apex court upholds the provisions regarding regularization, the petitioner shall be entitled to seek for regularization. 11. If, however, the petitioner fails to secure the regularization, either because the Apex Court nullifies the provisions or the authorities find that the violations cannot be regularized, fresh proceedings can be initiated by the BBMP, in accordance with law. 12. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 90