- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15559 WP No. 11449 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 11449 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: SRI.S.MARIMUTHU S/O LATE S. SAHADEVAN AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT NO.264 3RD MAIN ROAD CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU - 560 018 … PETITIONER (BY SRI. V.LAKSHMI NARAYANA, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI.VIKRAM BALAJI., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001 2. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE CHAMARAJPETE, BENGALURU - 560 018 4. THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE Digitally signed by VIDYA G R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15559 WP No. 11449 of 2025 MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 003 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BOPANNA BELLIAPPA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADV. FOR R2 & R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE ORDER PASSED BY R-3 ANNEXURE-A NOTICE DTD 11.01.2023 BEARING NO., ANNEXURE-B PROVISIONAL ORDER DTD 27.01.2023 BEARING NO., ANNEXURE-C SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DTD 27.01.2023 BEARING NO., ANNEXURE-D ORDER DTD 07.02.2023 BEARING NO., ANNEXURE-E NOTICE LETTER DTD 05.04.2025 BEARING NO., AND AS ONE WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND IS IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURE JUSTICE 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 The petitioner has called in question the validity of the proceedings initiated under Section 248 of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 ('BBMP Act' for short) and various grounds have been raised including that there was no notice of the proceedings initiated under Section 248 of the BBMP Act. Further, a contention is raised regarding the jurisdiction for initiating the proceedings by way of notice under Section 248 of BBMP Act. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15559 WP No. 11449 of 2025 2. It is noticed that as against the order under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, the substantive right of appeal under Section 253 lies to the Chief Commissioner. 3. 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 petitioner to avail of the substantive remedy. 4. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off. The petitioner is at liberty to file an appeal in terms of Section 253 of the BBMP Act and if appeal is filed within ten days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, the Chief Commissioner to take note of the same without raising any objection on the ground of limitation. 5. 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 petitioner undertakes to file. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15559 WP No. 11449 of 2025 6. Needless to state that the benefit as granted above would enure to the petitioner only if appeal is filed within ten days as stated above. 7. Insofar as unauthorised construction of fourth and fifth floor as is noticed in the Provisional Order passed under Section 248(1) of the BBMP Act, the petitioner undertakes to seek regularisation of the same as is permissible in law by obtaining the T.D.R. and Premium F.A.R. as is permissible in law. The petitioner to file an Affidavit to such effect detailing that the petitioner is seeking regularisation of unauthorised construction in light of the observations made above and the undertaking of the petitioner. Said Affidavit to be filed within one week and necessary application to respondent - BBMP to be made within two weeks. If such application is filed, the respondent BBMP to take appropriate decision without waiting for outcome of the proceedings. 8. It is pointed out that insofar as neighbour of the petitioner is concerned, had filed W.P.No.26744/2023 and - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15559 WP No. 11449 of 2025 had sought for appropriate action against respondent - BBMP who had failed to take action despite the order being under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act as regards fifth and sixth floor which have been constructed contrary to the sanction plan. 9. It is also noticed that against such order, i.e. as regards the order dated 22.01.2024 passed in W.P.No.26744/2023, contempt proceedings were also initiated in CCC No.777/2024 (Civil) and the said proceedings were dropped as per the order dated 20.02.2025 by granting eight weeks' time to the respondent BBMP to take action. It is clarified that the proceedings in W.P.No.26744/2023 and the contempt proceedings would not take away the rights of the petitioner to challenge in accordance with the statutory rights as regards the order under Section 248(3) and the consequential orders in terms of Section 253 of the BBMP Act. Accordingly, the order dated 22.01.2024 passed in W.P.No.26744/2023 would not come in the way of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15559 WP No. 11449 of 2025 petitioner seeking to assail the order passed under Section 248(3) and the consequential order in appeal proceedings under Section 253 of the BBMP Act. 10. Learned counsel appearing for respondent BBMP has furnished copy of the proceedings initiated under Section 248 and the order of demolition to the learned counsel for the petitioner on record. 11. The submission of learned counsel appearing for respondent - BBMP that demolition has been put to hold in light of the proceedings, is taken on record. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VGR