- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3030 WP No. 51368 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. 51368 OF 2016 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. Y L LALITHA W/O CHANNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT NO.26, 3RD MAIN ROAD, LAKSHMANA NAGARA HEGGANAHALLI CROSS, BENGALURU 560091 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. D GANGADHARA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N R SQUARE, BENGALURU 560002 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HEGGANAHALLI SUB DVN., BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, DASARAHALLI ZONE, BENGALURU 560091. 3. BHAGYALAKSHMI D AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO. 17/4, 3RD MAIN ROAD, Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3030 WP No. 51368 of 2016 LAKSHMANA NAGAR, HEGGANAHALLI CROSS, BENGALURU-560 091. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. AMIT DESHPANDE., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI. CHANDRA.K., ADVOCATE FOR R-3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.03.2016 PASSED IN REVENUE APPEAL NO.183/2011 BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE AT ANNEXURE-M, ETC. 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. This petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for brevity, “the Tribunal”), by which, the order of confirmation has been upheld by the Tribunal. 2. A reading of confirmatory order would indicate that the BBMP did receive objections from the petitioner, but the said objections have been overruled only with the reasoning that the reply given was untenable. In my view, such a cryptic reasoning would be improper - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3030 WP No. 51368 of 2016 especially when a reply had been given through a lawyer regarding the allegations made in the provisional order. 3. The Tribunal, without considering as to whether the objections filed by the petitioner were in fact considered by the authorities or not, has proceeded only on the footing that the construction put up was illegal. It is also noticed that the construction that is put up is prior to the year 2013 and if there are any deviations, the petitioner would be entitled to seek for regularization, subject of course to the outcome of the litigation that is pending before the Apex Court regarding legality of permitting regularization of unauthorized construction. 4. In that view of the matter, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and the same are quashed. The matter is remitted back to the concerned Engineer, who shall consider the objections filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3030 WP No. 51368 of 2016 period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If it is permissible for the petitioner to seek regularization of her construction, she shall also be permitted to do so. 5. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53