- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6217 WP No. 1661 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 1661 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. SRI S N SOMASHEKAR S/O S T NINGE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.252, 3RD ‘C’ CROSS, II BLOCK, III STAGE, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BENGALURU 560 079. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. T N VISHWANATH, ADVOCATE FOR GIRISHA T R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560 001. 2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGAR PALIKE, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, J C ROAD, BENGALURU 560 001. 3. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, URBAN PLANNING (WEST), BBMP, WEST ZONE, BASHYAM PARK, SESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU-560 020. Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6217 WP No. 1661 of 2025 4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NO.1, WEST SUB-DIVISION, BDA, BENGALURU 560 040. 5. SRI VENKATESH PRASAD, S/O LATE SATYANARAYANA RAO H V, RESIDING AT NO.183, 3RD MAIN ROAD, SBM COLONY, BANASHANKARI 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU 560 050. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA FOR R1; SMT. SAMIDHA PRADEEP WAINGANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3; SRI. R B SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO IMPLEMENT THE CONFIRMATION ORDER DATED 15/10/2024, A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNX-K AND ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION IS REMOVED BY PARTY R5 IN SITE NO. 489, 3RD STAGE, 3RD BLOCK, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BASAVESHWARA NAGAR, WARD NO. 19-3-489, BENGALURU AND UNTIL SUCH TIME TO STOP THE FURTHER CONSTRUCTION THEREIN. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6217 WP No. 1661 of 2025 ORAL ORDER 1. The prayer in this petition is for a direction to the respondents to implement the order of confirmation dated 15.10.2024, the copy which is produced at Annexure – K. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent points out that, as against the order of confirmation, an appeal was preferred by the 5th respondent and the appellate authority has in fact granted an order of status quo. 3. He also submits that the appellate authority has reserved the matter for pronouncement of judgment, and, therefore, the question of entertaining the prayer of the petitioner would not arise. 4. In view of the fact that the order of confirmation is under challenge before the appellate authority, it is obvious that the prayer sought for by the petitioner - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6217 WP No. 1661 of 2025 cannot be entertained at this stage. This petition is therefore dismissed for the present. 5. It is however made clear that, in the event, the appellate authority were to dismiss the appeal, and if there are no further legal impediments, the Corporation shall implement its order of confirmation. 6. It is needless to state that if there is an order of status quo granted by the appellate authority, the 5th respondent cannot put up any construction and if any attempt is being made to put up a construction, the concerned Jurisdictional Engineer shall take necessary steps to prevent further construction. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE GSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13