- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17272 WP No. 12719 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 12719 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. KUMUDHA G W/O R.V. DINISH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT NO. 825, 17TH F MAIN ROAD, 5TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 010 … PETITIONER (BY SRI. K V NARASIMHAN., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BRUHAT MAHANAGARA BENGALURU PALIKE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER, N R SQUARE, BANGALORE - 560 001 2. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH) BRUHAT MAHANAGARA BENGALURU PALIKE 9TH CROSS ROAD, 9TH MAIN ROAD, 2ND BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 011 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, BRUHAT MAHANAGARA BENGALURU PALIKE, 9TH CROSS ROAD, 9TH MAIN ROAD, Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17272 WP No. 12719 of 2025 2ND BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 011 4. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BTM LAYOUT SUB-DIVISION, 16TH MAIN ROAD, BTM 1ST STAGE, BBMP, BANGALORE - 560 021. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED PROVISIONAL ORDER AT ANNEXURE-F DATED 30/9/2022 BEARING NO. SA.NI.NA YO(DA)/P.O/28(1)/2022-23 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 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 ORAL ORDER Sri Pawan Kumar, learned counsel accepts notice for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has called in question the validity of the order at Annexure-'H' dated 07.11.2022 passed under Section 248(3) of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act ('BBMP Act' for short). - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17272 WP No. 12719 of 2025 3. It is the case of the petitioner that she did not have notice of the said order and came to know about the order only when the order at Annexure-'J' and 'K' dated 15.04.2025 and 21.04.2025 came to be served, which was order of demolition passed under Section 356(2) of the BBMP Act. 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 petitioner to avail of the substantive remedy. 6. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off. The petitioner is at liberty to file an appeal in terms of Section 253 and if the 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. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17272 WP No. 12719 of 2025 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 petitioner undertake to file. 8. 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. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE NP