- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2821 WP No. 1534 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 1534 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. MRS. SHANTI B WIFE OF MR. BHASKAR.V., AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT 10/72, 2ND MAIN ROAD, LAGGERE, F.F. COLONY, BANGALORE-560058. 2. MR. BHASKAR. V. SON OF MR. VENKATESHULU, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS RESIDING AT 10/72, 2ND MAIN ROAD, LAGGERE, F.F. COLONY, BANGALORE-560058, …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M.B.CHANDRACHOOD., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NAGAMANJU K.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUTHDA, DR. ABEDEKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001 2. THE COMMISSIONER BBMP N.R. SQUARE BENAGLURU-560 002 3. THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER EAST ZONE, BBMP N.R. SQUARE Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2821 WP No. 1534 of 2025 BENAGLURU-560 002 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SPOORTHI.V., HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. PAWAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE ISSUING THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 248(1) OF BBMP ACT 2020 DATED 10/01/2025 BUT, THE SIGNED ON 16/01/2025 AND ANOTHER NOTICED ISSUED UNDER SECTION 248(2) OF BBMP ACT 2020 DATED 10/01/2025, 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. It is noticed that this petition is filed challenging a provisional order on the ground that the property-in- question has been given a B-Khata and, therefore, building plans would not be sanctioned. 2. It is contended that, as a consequence, when the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike ('the BBMP') refuses to consider the applications for sanctioning a plan for a site, which is registered in the B-Khata register, the passing of a provisional order calling - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2821 WP No. 1534 of 2025 upon the petitioners to file objections would be an exercise in futility. 3. In my view, it would be appropriate to the petitioners to file such objections as they think proper and contend before the Authorities that the petitioners cannot be blamed since the BBMP refuses to even receive the applications filed by B-Khata holders for sanction of the building plan. 4. If such objections are filed, the respondents are directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 5. Subject to the above, this writ petition is dismissed. 6. Two weeks time is granted to the petitioners to file the objections to the provisional order. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE GSR,List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8