- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1293 WP No. 669 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 669 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. SRI MURALIDHAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS S/O D. VENKATARAMU R/AT HOUSE NO.46, 16TH MAIN ROAD J.C. NAGAR KURUBRAHALLI BENGALURU-560 086. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K N NITISH., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE REP. BY ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002. 2. THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER(WEST ZONE) BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE SAMPIGE ROAD, OPP OF MANTRI MALL BENGALURU-560 003. 3. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING(WEST) BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE BASHYAM PARK, SHESHADRIPURAM BENGALURU-560 003. 4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER TOWN PLANNING(WEST) BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE BASHYAM PARK, SHESHADRIPURAM Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1293 WP No. 669 of 2025 BENGALURU-560 003. 5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE MAHALAKSHMIPURA SUB-DIVISION BANGALORE-560 086. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED DEMOLITION ORDER DTD 06.01.2025 AT ANNX-H BEARING NO. ZC(W)/PR/15/2024-25 ISSUED BY THE R-2 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. Sri.Pawan Kumar, learned counsel, takes notice for the respondents. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that though an appeal is preferred challenging the confirmatory order before the Chief Commissioner, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagar Palike, Bengaluru and an order of status quo has been granted on 30.11.2024, an order of demolition has been passed on 06.01.2025 and on the basis of this, attempts have been made to seal the property. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1293 WP No. 669 of 2025 3. Since it is not in dispute that an appeal has been preferred by the petitioner and the same is pending consideration, it is obvious that the authorities cannot pass an order of demolition especially when the appellate authority has passed an order of status quo. 4. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner will not put up any further construction till the disposal of the appeal. 5. Consequently, the impugned order of demolition shall not be acted upon till the disposal of the appeal that has been filed by the petitioner viz., appeal No.272 of 2024. 6. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE RK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2