- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2949 WP No. 31537 of 2016 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. 31537 OF 2016 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. SMT A M RASHMI W/O SUBBAIAH, AGED 36 YEARS, 18/B, 1ST B CROSS, DASARAHALLY, MARUTHI LAYOUT,BANGALORE-560 024. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. N.RAVINDRANATH KAMATH., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. MOHAMMED ASHHAR.C.K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BYATARAYANAPURA SUB DIVISION, BANGALORE-560 024. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.M.VENKATA REDDY., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 22.03.2016 PASSED IN APPEAL NO.1057/2012 (REVENUE) BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE AT ANNEX-A AND QUASH KTHE ORDER DATED 04.10.2012 IN C.P.21/12-13 BY BBMP, AT ANNEXURE-A1, ETC. Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2949 WP No. 31537 of 2016 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. A provisional order was passed by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike ('the BBMP') contending that the petitioner had erected a structure without obtaining any permission. 2. Thereafter, the provisional order was confirmed stating that though the provisional order was served, the petitioner had not responded to the same. 3. Being aggrieved by said order, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’, for short) and the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal. Hence this writ petition. 4. It was the case of the petitioner before the Tribunal that his vendor had obtained a sanctioned - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2949 WP No. 31537 of 2016 plan from the concerned Gram Panchayat in the year 2002 and the building had been erected in accordance with the sanctioned plan. However, the Tribunal has rejected this contention on the ground that the plan was stated to have been approved in the year 2002 and construction was required to be completed within two years thereafter. But, the petitioner was constructing the structure in the year 2012 and hence, the said defence of the petitioner could not be accepted. 5. In my view, since the petitioner had put forth the contention that he had obtained a sanctioned plan from the concerned Gram Panchayat, the BBMP was required to consider whether this permission was valid and whether on the basis of this sanction, the petitioner could have erected a construction. 6. In that view of the matter, the impugned order of the Tribunal (Annexure ‘A’) and the confirmation - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2949 WP No. 31537 of 2016 order (Annexure ‘A1’) are set aside and the petitioner is directed to file his objections to the provisional order within a period of four weeks from today and on such objections being filed, the respondents are obligated to consider the same and pass appropriate order. 7. The petitioner shall also be entitled to seek for regularization if the building is in contravention of the Building Bye-Laws. 8. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50