- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6457 WP No. 4093 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 4093 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. ARAVIND PRAKASH, S/O L PADMA PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.572, 10TH CROSS, NEAR JSS CIRCLE, 7TH BLOCK WEST, JAYANAGAR, BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU 570 070. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MANIKANTA H B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R.ROAD, BENGALURU-560002. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER 2. THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER (SOUTH). BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BBMP COMPLEX, 9TH CROSS, 9TH MAIN, 2ND BLOCK JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU 560 011. 3. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH), BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BBMP COMPLEX, 9TH CROSS, 9TH MAIN, 2ND BLOCK JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU 560 011. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6457 WP No. 4093 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO QUASH THE DEMOLITION UNDER SECTION 356 OF THE ACT BEARING NO. VA.A(D)/P/R/NI.AA/15/2024-25 DATED. 04.01.2025 PASSED BY THE R-2 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-A, 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. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order of confirmation passed under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act. 2. It is his contention that the provisional order was not served on him and hence he could not file his objections. 3. Admittedly, as against the order of confirmation, an appeal is provided for, under the statute. 4. In that view of the matter, it would be appropriate to relegate the petitioner to avail of the appellate remedy provided under the statute. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6457 WP No. 4093 of 2025 5. It would be open for the petitioner to raise the question of non-service of the provisional order and the fact that he was prevented from filing his objections to the provisional order before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority shall consider his objections and record whether the provisional order was served or not on the petitioner. 6. If the provisional order was found not to have been served on the petitioner, obviously the order of confirmation will not be sustained. 7. Thus, relegating the petitioner to the Appeal Authority, this writ petition is dismissed. 8. Till the filing of the appeal, both the parties to maintain status quo. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE GSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8