- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13693 WP No. 9732 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 9732 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. SRI MEHFOOZ KHAN S/O MASOOQUE KHAN AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 2. SMT. BADRUNNISHA W/O MASOOQUE KHAN, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS BOTH ARE PERMANENT RESIDENT OF NO.35/8, STONALY ROAD ALLAHABAD, UP RESIDING NOW R/AT C-879, AECS LAYOUT KUNDALAHALLI BANGALORE - 560 037 BOTH ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER NAGARAJU AALLA S/O IZACK, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT 403, RSUN APARTMENTS, BOREWELL ROAD, WHITE FIELD, BANGLAORE-560 048 … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SRINIVAS V., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by PRAKASH N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13693 WP No. 9732 of 2025 AND: 1. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGAR PALIKE N.R.SQUARE BANGALURU-560 002 2. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING MAHADEVA PURA ZONE WHITEFIELD MAIN RD, OPPOSITE PHOENIX MARKETCITY, RHB COLONY, MAHADEVAPURA, BENGALURU - 560 048 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MAHADEVAPURA ZONE, BANGALORE -48 4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DODDANEKUNDI SUB-DIVISION, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BENGALURU -560 037 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) QUASH THE CONFIRMATION ORDER DATED 21/06/2024 BEARING NO.BBMP/SA.NI.NA.YO/MA.VA/C.O./142/2023-24 PASSED UNDER 248(3), OF THE BBMP ACT BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-E TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13693 WP No. 9732 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Learned Counsel Sri.Pawan Kumar accepts notice for the respondent nos.1 to 4. 2. The petitioner has called in question the validity of the order under Section 248 (3) of the BBMP Act, 2020 at Annexure-E on the ground that there was no notice of the said order. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that they do not have notice of the said order and came to know of it only when the respondent authorities sought to enforce the order under Section 356 (2) at Annexure-F. 4. It is noticed that as against the order under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, substantive right of appeal under Section 253 lies to the Chief Commissioner. 5. Accordingly, it would be appropriate considering the consequences flowing from the orders passed under Section 248(3) and Section 356 of the BBMP Act to relegate the petitioners to avail of the substantive remedy. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13693 WP No. 9732 of 2025 6. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off. The petitioners are at liberty to file an appeal in terms of Section 253 and if appeal is filed within ten days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, the Chief Commissioner to take note of the same without raising any objection on the ground of limitation. 7. However, there would be an interim order of stay of the orders passed under Section 248(3) and Section 356 of the BBMP Act till the Appellate Authority considers the application for stay in the appeal which the petitioners undertake to file. 8. Needless to state that the benefit as granted above would enure to the petitioners only if appeal is filed within ten days as stated above." 9. It is noticed that two floors have been put up unauthorisedly. In light of protection being granted for those extra floors by relegating the petitioner to avail of appeal remedy, petitioner to file an affidavit that if modification of plan under Section 240(8) or regularisation - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13693 WP No. 9732 of 2025 by way of premium FAR is not permissible, petitioner would remove the said unauthorised floors and such affidavit to be filed within two days. 10. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE NP