- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3025 WP No. 30645 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. 30645 OF 2016 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. V. MANJUNATH, S/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.4, 3RD E CROSS, 26TH MAIN ROAD, BTM LAYOUT 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560036 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. G S VENKAT SUBBA RAO., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R SQUARE, BENGALURU -560 001 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BTM LAYOUT SUB-DIVISION, 16TH MAIN ROAD, BTM 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU-560 029 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. H.DEVENDRAPPA., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:30.3.2016 PASSED IN APPEAL NO.176/2012 BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ORDER DATED:29.12.2011 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 321(3) OF KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ACT 1976 VIDE ANNEXURE-G, ETC. Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3025 WP No. 30645 of 2016 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (“the Tribunal”, for short), by which the Tribunal has upheld the order of confirmation. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was not served with the copy of the provisional order and hence, he could not file his objections. A dispute did arise regarding the receipt of provisional order, while the petitioner contends that he has not received the provisional order, the BBMP contends that it has served the copy of the provisional order on the petitioner. 3. Be that as it may, since the matter is of the year 2016 and the deviations mentioned in the provisional order indicates that the deviations are only to the extent of 50% and the petitioner also has a right to - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3025 WP No. 30645 of 2016 seek regularization, in the event the Apex Court upholds the provisions regarding regularization of unauthorized construction, in my view, it would be appropriate to set aside the order of the Tribunal as well as the confirmatory order and remand the matter to the jurisdictional Engineer to permit the petitioner to file his objections to the provisional order within a period of four weeks and thereafter, within a period of four weeks, the jurisdictional Engineer shall pass appropriate orders, after hearing the petitioner. 4. The petitioner is also entitled to make a plea for regularization of his unauthorized construction, if he so desires and if it is permissible in law. 5. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE PKS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12