- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2750 WP No. 29685 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 29685 OF 2016 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: SRI M VENKATACHALA S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O DOOR NO.18, 4TH MAIN ROAD GOVINDARAJANAGAR BANGALORE-560040 …PETITIONER (BY SMT. INDUMATHI S.R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE GOVINDARAJANAGAR, VIJAYANAGARA (D) BANGALORE-560 001 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER GOVINDARAJANAGAR SUB DIVISION, BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE BANGALORE-560040 3. THE KARNATAKA APPELLANT TRIBUNAL M.S.BUILDING BANGALORE-560001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A JAGANATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 SRI. BOPANNA BELLIAPPA, AGA FOR R3) Digitally signed by SUMITHRA R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2750 WP No. 29685 of 2016 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.03.2016 PASSED BY R-3 KAT IN APPEAL NO.700/2013 AT ANNEX-K; DIRECT R-1 & 2 NOT TO DEMOLISH THE CONSTRUCTIONS EXISTING WITHIN THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the Confirmatory Order, which has been confirmed in appeal. 2. The Provisional Order state that there was 100% deviation in respect of the ground floor and in respect of the first and second floors, there was deviation to the extent of 44.27% and 64.84%, respectively. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a copy of the Provisional Order was not served on the petitioner at all and the Authority has proceeded to pass the Confirmatory Order. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2750 WP No. 29685 of 2016 4. A perusal of the Appellate Order does not indicate as to whether the Appellate Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the Provisional Order was indeed served on the petitioner or not. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal appears to have proceeded on the footing that the building had been constructed by deviating from the sanctioned plan, as could be seen from the photograph. 5. It is noticed here that the plot in question was only measuring 49.78 sq.mts. and under the Regulations, there was actually no need to secure a sanctioned plan. But, nevertheless, the petitioner has secured a sanctioned plan. In my view, since the petitioner did not have any opportunity to file objections to the Provisional Order, it would be appropriate to quash the Appellate Order as well the Confirmatory Order and direct the petitioner to file objections to the said order. 6. It is also open to the petitioner to contend before the Authority that the construction being of the year 2012 he would be entitled to seek for regularization under the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2750 WP No. 29685 of 2016 amended provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 subject to the final outcome of the petition pending in the Supreme Court. Writ petition is accordingly, allowed. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE rs List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46