- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10992 WP No. 6541 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 6541 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: MISHRIMAL S/O DHANARAJ KATARIOA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO.45(A), 9TH MAIN ROAD, 52ND CROSS, 4TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 010. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JAGADEESH D.C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BBMP HEAD OFFICE, NR SQUARE, BANGALORE- 560 002. 2. THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER BBMP (WEST) BASHYAM PARK, SHRESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE - 560 021. 3. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING (WEST) BBMP, BASHYAM PARK SHRESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE - 560 021 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by PRAKASH N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10992 WP No. 6541 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 03.02.2025 BEARING NO.VA.AA (PA)/PR/1933/2024-25 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND THE IMPUGNED DEMOLITION ORDER DATED 24.02.2025 BEARING NO. ZC (W)/PR/25/2024-25 VIDE ANNEXURE -D1 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner has called in question the validity of notice at Annexure-D dated 03.02.2025 passed by the second respondent whereby the petitioner was called upon to remove the deviated portion in terms of the order passed under Section 248 (3) of the BBMP Act, 2020 ("the Act", for short), failing which further proceedings would be resorted to. Subsequently, the order of demolition was passed on 24.02.2025. 2. It is noticed that the petitioner has approached this court though against the order under Section 248 (3), - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10992 WP No. 6541 of 2025 he has statutory right of appeal under Section 253 before the Chief Commissioner. 3. It is submitted that in light of impending demolition, petitioner was constrained to approach this Court. 4. Taking note of substantial remedy of appeal available under Section 253 before the Chief Commissioner, the petition stands disposed off. All contentions are kept open to enable reasonable time for the petitioner to file an appeal. 5. The order at Annexure-D1 would be stayed for a period of three weeks from today. Respondent-BBMP not to take any action pursuant to the order under Section 256 for a period of three weeks. 6. Though this court has granted three weeks time for availing of statutory remedy, it is clarified that the interim order of stay of the impugned order of demolition would continue till consideration of the interim relief - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10992 WP No. 6541 of 2025 sought for in the appeal to be filed. However, it is clarified that the benefit extended regarding stay of the order of demolition is subject to petitioner filing an appeal within a period of three weeks from today as observed above. The appeal would be taken on Board without raising any objection on the ground of delay. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE NP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57