- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17373 WP No. 15873 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 15873 OF 2024 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: SRI. N. VIJAYA DHWAJA S/O LATE NARASIMHAMURTHY RESIDING AT NO. 284, 13TH CROSS 17TH MAIN, HSR LAYOUT, SECTOR 4 BANGALORE 560102. REPRESENTED BY HIS SPA HOLDER SMT. ROOPA HARIPRASAD D/O N. VIJAYA DHWAJA RESIDING AT NO. 284, 13TH CROSS 17TH MAIN, HSR LAYOUT, SECTOR 4 BANGALORE-560102. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. B.G.NAYANA TARA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE NR SQUARE, BANGALORE-560002 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER 2. ZONAL COMMISSIONER BOMMANNAHALLI Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17373 WP No. 15873 of 2024 DIVISION BEGUR ROAD, BOMMANAHALLI BANGALORE-560068. 3. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING BOMMANNAHALLI DIVISION BEGUR ROAD BOMMANNAHALLI BANGALORE-560068. 4. SMT. UMA T.N. AGED 64 YEARS W/O LATE SRI. PADMANABHAN .S NO. 165/Y, 3RD MAIN, 7TH BLOCK 4TH PHASE, NEAR KAMAYA THEATRE BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE BANGALORE-560102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.S. MALLIKARJUN REDDY,ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. SANGAMESH .R.B, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R1 TO R3 TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE BY R4 OF THE CONFIRMATION ORDER DATED 18/01/2024 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G ISSUED BY R3 BEARING NO. SNIU/BOB/P.O/499/23-24 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17373 WP No. 15873 of 2024 ORAL ORDER 1. The prayer in this writ petition is to issue a mandamus to direct respondent Nos.1 to 3 to ensure that the order of confirmation dated 18.01.2024 is complied with. An alternative prayer is made for issuance of a direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to demolish the illegal construction put up by respondent No.4 in accordance with the order of confirmation. 2. Respondent No.4 has filed objections in which it is stated that, respondent No.4 has preferred an appeal to the Commissioner as against the order of confirmation passed by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike ('the BBMP'), and, in the appeal, the Appellate Authority has granted an order of status quo. 3. In the light of an appeal being preferred against the order of confirmation and the Appellate Authority - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17373 WP No. 15873 of 2024 having granted an interim order of status quo, the prayer made in the writ petition for a direction to implement the order of confirmation cannot be considered or granted. 4. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to revive the prayer by filing a separate writ petition in the event the appeal filed by respondent No.4 is dismissed. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of, having become infructuous by virtue of the interim order granted by the Appellate Authority which has nullified the prayer sought for in the writ petition. 5. However, notwithstanding the above, it has become necessary for this Court to take into consideration the manner in which the issue of unauthorized construction is being dealt with by the BBMP and issue directions to the BBMP detailing the manner in which it should proceed to deal with unauthorised/illegal constructions, as there are far too many cases coming before this Court which relate - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17373 WP No. 15873 of 2024 to passing orders of confirmation and prayers to either implement the said orders or to nullify the entire proceedings. The net result of all this litigation is that the unauthorized constructions are being put up with impunity and there is no consequence to anyone if a construction is put up unauthorizedly or illegally. 6. The manner in which the entire issue is presently being dealt with by the BBMP basically aids the wrong doer and, more importantly, renders the whole process of regulating constructions a futile exercise. This, in turn, results in haphazard development, gross malpractices from everyone concerned and ultimately harms the community as a whole. It is for this reason it has become imperative for this Court to issue appropriate directions which shall be given effect to and implemented by the BBMP. 7. In order to understand the entire issue relating to unauthorized constructions, it would be necessary to - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17373 WP No. 15873 of 2024 refer to the provisions relating to the regulation of buildings both under the erstwhile the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (the ‘KMC ACT’ for short) and also the present BBMP Act, 2020. 8. Chapter XV of the KMC Act deals with ‘Regulation of Buildings’. Section 295 to Section 310 of this Chapter would be relevant for this purpose. 9. Section 295 provides for the Corporation to make bye-laws with the approval of the Government. These bye-laws would have to pertain to: (a) to the regulation or restriction of the use of sites or buildings and (b) for the regulation or restriction of a building. The said provision enables Bye-laws to be framed regarding various matters relating to the construction of the buildings. 10. It is clear from this provision that the objective of framing a bye-law is to ensure that constructions are put up in an appropriate manner so that they are - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:17373 WP No. 15873 of 2024 neither unsanitary nor dangerous for the community as a whole. The objective of framing a bye-law is also to ensure that there is uniformity and definiteness in the matter of putting up a building and it would prevent any arbitrary action by all concerned in the matter of construction of buildings. 11. Section 295A and 296 provide for an obligation to provide for rainwater harvesting structure and also to enable the corporation to regulate future construction of certain classes of buildings. 12. Section 297 deals with construction of building at the corner of streets. 13. Section 298 prohibits use of inflammable materials for buildings without obtaining the permission of the Government. 14. These four provisions i.e., 295A to 298 are provisions which ensure that the buildings that are constructed - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:17373 WP No. 15873 of 2024 would aid in the orderly development of the entire community and as a result the entire city. 15. Section 299 mandates that a person who intends to put up a construction or re-construct a building is required to make an application in writing seeking the permission of the Commissioner to execute the work that he proposes. The application is required to be accompanied by a site plan, a ground-plan, elevations and sections of the building, a specification of work and such other documents that may be prescribed are to be enclosed along with the application. The language of this Section would therefore indicate that the Corporation should be aware of the proposed construction and all the details relating to the said construction. The Corporation is required to take into consideration the proposed structure and examine whether they conform to the bye-laws that have been framed. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:17373 WP No. 15873 of 2024 16. Section 300 of the KMC Act creates a specific bar for commencing a construction or reconstruction of a building unless permission is granted by the Commissioner for the execution of the work. In other words, no construction or re-construction can be commenced unless it is preceded by a permission granted by the Commissioner. 17. Sections 301 and 302 provides for period within which the Commissioner is required to grant or refuse permission and also for a reference to the standing committee if the Commissioner delays grant or refusal of permission. They basically state that the Commissioner would have to either grant or refuse permission within 30 days of an application being made and, if that permission is not granted within 30 days, the applicant is required to address a letter to the Commissioner and request him to pass necessary orders on his application and, if this request is also not considered within a period of 30 days, the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:17373 WP No. 15873 of 2024 applicant is required to make a written request to the concerned standing committee to determine whether such approval or permission should or should not be given. The standing committee, if it does not within a month from the receipt of the written request of the applicant, determine whether the approval should or should not be granted, there is a deemed approval contemplated which permits the applicant to execute the work. 18. However, even if there is a deemed approval, the applicant is required to ensure that no provisions of the Act or Rules or bye-laws are contravened while putting up the construction. The provisions of Sections 301 and 302 would therefore indicate that the entire process of consideration of an applicant’s request is to be decided within a period of 90 days i.e., 60 days by the Commissioner and 30 days thereafter by the standing committee. This would also indicate that the legislature wanted to incorporate a - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:17373 WP No. 15873 of 2024 sense of urgency into the entire process so that the requisite decisions are taken as expeditiously as possible, which would in turn prevent the requests for commencing the construction being kept pending endlessly and would ensure that an escalation in the cost of construction is prevented. 19. It is to be noticed here that the provision of law ultimately states that even if there was a deemed approval granted (if no decisions were taken within the prescribed time frame) the applicant should nevertheless ensure that the buildings that is constructed adheres to the provisions of the Act, the Rules and the bye-laws framed thereunder. 20. This would therefore indicate that the ultimate objective of the law is to ensure that a building is erected in accordance with the provisions of the Act or the Rules or the bye-laws. The grant of permission is only to ensure that there is a consideration of the - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:17373 WP No. 15873 of 2024 request and an examination of the request with reference to the bye-laws. 21. Section 303 specifically provides 7 grounds under which permission could be refused by the Commissioner. The first condition is that the work or the use of the sight for the work do not contravene the specific provisions of any law or order, rule, declaration or bye-law. This essentially means that if any bye-law is violated in the proposed plan, the Commissioner is empowered to refuse the request. The remaining conditions incorporating in Section 303 basically relate to the procedural requirements and ensure the constructions are not made on some one else’s lands, such as that of the Corporation or the Government’s and that the proposed building has appropriate access. 22. Section 303(2) specifically states that when an order of refusal is passed, the order should contain specific reasons for such refusal. This would therefore - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:17373 WP No. 15873 of 2024 indicate that the Commissioner is required to consider the merits of the application only with reference to the grounds mentioned in Section 303 (1)(a) to (g) for refusing request. 23. Section 304 seeks to create additional conditions in respect of a construction of any building of public entertainment. 24. Section 305 states that notwithstanding anything contained in Section 303 (which setout the ground for refusal of permission) the Commissioner has the special power to refuse the permission to construct a building, if a street shown in the site plan is yet to be formed or completed. The Commissioner has been specially empowered to refuse permission if the building proposed to be constructed is situated on a land which is proposed to be acquired for a public purpose. However, it is made clear that this power to refuse permission would cease to operate after a period of six months, thereby meaning that - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:17373 WP No. 15873 of 2024 permission cannot be withheld endlessly on the premise that the land is likely to be acquired. 25. Section 306 provides for a lapse of permission if the construction is not commenced within two years. 26. Section 307 states that a Commissioner may inspect any building during construction or re-construction or at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of the notice given under Section 115. The notice which is contemplated under Section 115 is a notice indicating that the building has been completed and a request is also made for tax assessment of the building. 27. These set of provisions from Sections 299 to 310 would therefore fundamentally indicate that there is specific procedure to be followed before a person undertakes the task of constructing the building. These provisions are designed to ensure that the Corporation is provided due notice about the - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:17373 WP No. 15873 of 2024 proposed construction and the Corporation is required to examine the request with reference to specified rules or bye-laws and, ultimately either grant or refuse permission. This elaborate procedure prescribed would essentially ensure that the constructions that are put up are safe and they would ensure an orderly development of the entire municipal area. 28. Section 320 states that an application for alterations or additions would also have to be preceded by permission and the provisions for construction of buildings would be applicable. 29. Section 321 provides for demolition or alteration of buildings which have been unlawfully commenced, carried on or completed and the same reads as follows: “321. Demolition or alteration of buildings or well work unlawfully - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:17373 WP No. 15873 of 2024 commenced, carried on or completed.- (1) If the Commissioner is satisfied,- (i) that the construction or re-construction of any building or hut or well,- (a) has been commenced without obtaining his permission or where an appeal or reference has been made to the standing committee, in contravention of any order passed by the standing committee; or (b) is being carried on, or has been completed otherwise than in accordance with the plans or particulars on which such permission or order was based; or (c) is being carried on, or has been completed in breach of any of the provisions of this Act or of any rule or bye- law made under this Act or of any direction or requisition lawfully given or made under this Act or such rules or bye-laws; or (ii) that any alteration required by any notice issued under section 308, have not been duly made; or (iii) that any alteration of or addition to any building or hut or any other work made or - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:17373 WP No. 15873 of 2024 done for any purpose into, or upon any building or hut, has been commenced or is being carried on or has been completed in breach of section 320, he may make a provisional order requiring the owner of the building to demolish the work done, or so much of it as, in the opinion of the Commissioner, has been unlawfully executed, or make such alterations as may, in the opinion of the Commissioner, be necessary to bring the work into conformity with the Act, rules, bye- laws, directions or requisitions as aforesaid, or with the plans or particulars on which such permission or orders was based and may also direct that until the said order is complied with the owner or builder shall refrain from proceeding with the building or well or hut. (2) The Commissioner shall serve a copy of the provisional order made under sub-section (1) on the owner or builder of the building or hut or well together with a notice requiring him to show cause within a reasonable time to be named in such notice why the order should not be confirmed. (3) If the owner or builder fails to show cause to the satisfaction of the Commissioner, - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:17373 WP No. 15873 of 2024 the Commissioner may confirm the order, with any modification he may think fit and such order shall then be binding on the owner. (4) If the construction or reconstruction of any building or hut is commenced contrary to the provisions of section 300 or 314 and the Commissioner is of the opinion that immediate action should be taken, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, a notice to be given under sub-section (2) shall not be of less duration than twenty-four hours and shall be deemed to be duly served if it is affixed in some conspicuous part of the building or hut to which the notice relates and published by proclamation at or near such building or hut accompanied by beat of drum, and upon such affixation and publication, all persons concerned shall be deemed, to have been duly informed of the matters stated therein”. 30. This Section therefore would operate in three situations. Firstly, when a work is unlawfully commenced. Secondly, when it is being carried on. Thirdly, when the building is completed. - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:17373 WP No. 15873 of 2024 31. The wording of Section 321 would itself indicate that the Commissioner is required to take action at the time the construction of a building has commenced or subsequently when it is being carried or when it is completed. This would mean that the Commissioner is required to have an oversight and should also supervise the construction right from its commencement to its completion and at any stage, if it is noticed that there is a contravention, he can intervene and take appropriate action. 32. The provision would indicate that, if a building has been commenced without obtaining a permission or it has been carried on in violation of the plans or the permission granted and if it is also completed in breach of the permission or bye-laws, the Commissioner is empowered to make a provisional order requiring the owner of the building to demolish the work done and to ensure that the unlawful - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:17373 WP No. 15873 of 2024 portion/offending portion is demolished so as to bring the building within the permission accorded to it. 33. The provision, in fact, requires a copy of the provisional order to be furnished to the owner requiring him to show cause as to why the provisional order should not be confirmed. If the owner fails to show cause to the satisfaction of the Commissioner, the Commissioner is empowered to confirm the order or also modify it and once an order of confirmation is passed, the same would be binding on the owner. 34. Section 321(4) provides for grant of a minimum of twenty-four hours even if the Commissioner is of the view that immediate action has to be taken in lieu of the construction being contrary to the provisions of Section 303 or 314. It also provides for a deemed service of notice if it is affixed on the building or by proclamation by beat of drum. - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:17373 WP No. 15873 of 2024 35. Section 321B provides for penalty against the jurisdictional officer failing to prevent unauthorized deviations or constructions. The said provisions reads as follows: “321B. Penalty against jurisdictional officer failing to prevent unauthorised deviations or constructions.- The jurisdictional officer who is proved to have failed to prevent unauthorized deviation or construction that have taken place in his jurisdiction shall be liable for such punishment as may be prescribed”. 36. As could be seen from the above, the last provision in the Chapter relating to the unauthorized construction, provides for imposition of penalty on the jurisdictional officer if it is established that he had failed to prevent the unauthorized construction that had taken place within his jurisdiction. 37. If an overall view of the provisions from Section 299 to 321B is taken into consideration, it becomes rather - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:17373 WP No. 15873 of 2024 apparent that the first portion of the chapter relates to the manner in which permission is required to be secured for putting up a construction. The second part relates to the manner in which the construction is to be monitored by the Commissioner and the last provision provides for imposition of a penalty against the jurisdictional officer if he has failed to prevent the unauthorized construction. The provisions of this chapter are by themselves a complete code in relation to the manner in which the construction is to be undertaken by any person and the manner in which the construction is to be monitored and supervised by the authorities and it also provides for consequences for any lapse on the part of the jurisdictional officer. Unfortunately, though such an elaborate process has been established by the legislature, sadly, it is honored more by breach, then by adherence to the provisions. - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC:17373 WP No. 15873 of 2024 38. On the enactment of the BBMP Act of the year 2020, similar set of provisions are provided in Chapter XVI of the Act. The provisions of the BBMP Act are more or less similar to the erstwhile provisions provided under the KMC Act and they are at times even more elaborate than the ones under the KMC Act. 39. In essence, however, they basically would reflect the same intent that is, the requirement of securing permission and constructing a building thereafter in accordance with the permission granted. There are however slight modifications in the sense that, the period during which the construction can be put up has been increased from two years to five years and there is a provision which requires an applicant who puts up a construction without obtaining a sanction plan to pay a prescribed penalty and apply for sanction of a building plan under Section 240(8). 40. Section 240(9), (10) and (11) of the BBMP Act empowers the Zonal Commissioner to direct such - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC:17373 WP No. 15873 of 2024 persons who are constructing a building to undertake such modification or alteration of the building to ensure that they are in conformity with the sanctioned building plan and it also empowers the Zonal Commissioners or such other authorized officers to undertake random physical scrutiny of the buildings as would be necessary for the purposes of enforcing the provisions of this Act. Sub-section 11 in facts starts with a non-obstante clause and states that the Zonal Commissioner, notwithstanding him contained in Section 240(1) to (10) would have the power to order for stoppage of the construction if in his opinion it endangers human life. 41. Thus, as stated above, the procedure for grant of sanctioned for building plan under the BBMP Act is slightly more elaborate than the KMC Act, but ultimately it is designed so as to ensure that a construction is put up in accordance with the building bye-laws that have been framed. - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC:17373 WP No. 15873 of 2024 42. The provisions of the BBMP Act also contain the similar provisions for making an application and for the Zonal Commissioner to pass an order within the prescribed time frame. It also contains similar provisions which stipulate the grounds on which the approval can be refused. 43. Section 246 of the BBMP Act stipulates that every person who has constructed a building in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XVI is required to apply for completion certificate to the Zonal Commissioner within one month from the date of completion of such construction. It also mandates that the application for completion certificate should be certified by an empanelled architect, who is required to certify that the building has been constructed in accordance with the sanction plan. 44. In fact, the proviso to Section 246(2) stipulates that if an empanelled architect has certified the building and if it is found that the building was not in accordance - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC:17373 WP No. 15873 of 2024 with the building bye-laws, the Corporation could impose a penalty on the empanelled architect. 45. Section 246(3) mandates that the Zonal Commissioner, upon receiving an application for grant of completion certificate is to grant the completion certificate and for this purpose he may undertake such physical inspection as would be necessary to either grant or reject the application. 46. Section 248 is in pari materia with Section 321 of the erstwhile KMC Act and enables the Zonal Commissioner to pass a provisional order if the construction that has been put up is in contravention of the sanctioned plan. 47. If the owner fails to respond to the show cause notice or furnishes cause, the Zonal Commissioner is empowered to either confirm the order as originally passed or would modify he may think fit. - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC:17373 WP No. 15873 of 2024 48. The provision of the BBMP Act also contain a similar provision as 321B of the KMC act i.e., Section 252 which reads as follows: “252. Penalty against jurisdictional officer failing to prevent unauthorized deviations or constructions.-The jurisdictional officer who is proved to have failed to prevent unauthorized deviation or construction that have taken place in his jurisdiction shall be liable for such punishment as may be prescribed”. 49. Thus, as indicated above, if there is an unauthorized construction, the Zonal Commissioner is empowered to pass a provisional order of demolition, provide an opportunity to the owner to show cause and thereafter either confirm or modify the provisional order that he has passed. The provisions of this Chapter also contemplate a penalty to be imposed on the jurisdictional officer who had failed to prevent the unauthorized deviation or construction. - 28 - NC: 2025:KHC:17373 WP No. 15873 of 2024 50. To summarize, both under the KMC Act as well as under the BBMP Act, the structure of the Chapter relating to regulation of buildings basically require an applicant to secure permission before construction is commenced and during the process of construction, the same is required to be monitored by the Commissioner and if there is any contravention in the construction, powers have been conferred on the Commissioner to order for demolition. 51. In order to ensure that the officers are also made responsible for the putting up of unauthorized construction specific provisions have been made to impose a penalty against the jurisdictional officer. This would indicate that the intent of the law is to cast an obligation on the owner to put up a building in accordance with the sanctioned plan and, at the same time also ensure that the officer who monitors the construction meets with penal consequences if he has failed to prevent the unauthorized construction. It - 29 - NC: 2025:KHC:17373 WP No. 15873 of 2024 is therefore imperative, when considering the question of whether a building has been put up unauthorisedly, the entire process should include not only the owner of the building, but also the officer, who was in charge of monitoring the construction. 52. The fact that the provisions of the chapter relating to regulation of buildings contains specific provisions casting an obligation on the owner and at the same time providing for a penal consequences on the jurisdictional officer would basically indicate that every person who was responsible for the unauthorized construction is burdened with penal consequences for their failure to abide by the provisions of the chapter relating to regulation of buildings. 53. If the matter is viewed from this perspective, there can be no doubt that any action taken in respect of an unauthorized construction would have to include two entities i.e., the entity who started the - 30 - NC: 2025:KHC:17373 WP No. 15873 of 2024 construction (owner of the building) and the second entity would be the jurisdictional officer, who had failed to prevent the unauthorized construction. 54. If the entire process were to be one composite process involving both wrong doers, taking action against only one wrong doer and not proceeding against the other would fundamentally defeat the very objective of the legislature in casting the responsibility of putting up a structure not only against the owner, but also against the concerned officer. 55. As already noticed above, it is in this aspect of the matter that both the owners of the buildings and the officers of the BBMP have failed, resulting in mushrooming of unauthorized structures throughout the city. The BBMP by not discharging its obligation to penalize the jurisdictional officer and by keeping him immune from any action has basically encouraged - 31 - NC: 2025:KHC:17373 WP No. 15873 of 2024 and enabled the construction of unauthorized buildings. 56. In order to ascertain as to what was the procedure being followed by the BBMP in this regard, a series of orders were passed in this writ petition regarding the manner in which Section 321B was being implemented. 57. The learned counsel appearing for the BBMP placed on record, the Rules that were framed titled Karnataka Municipal Corporations (levy of penalty on jurisdictional officer for failure to prevent unauthorized construction and deviation) Rules, 2019. 58. The learned counsel also submitted that these Rules are deemed to have been continued unless new Rules are framed under the BBMP Act and, consequently, these are the Rules which would be applicable as - 32 - NC: 2025:KHC:17373 WP No. 15873 of 2024 against a jurisdictional officer both under the KMC Act and the BBMP Act. 59. Rule 3 of the said rule provides for imposition of a penalty against the jurisdictional officer, which reads as follows: “3 . Penalty against jurisdictional officer failing to prevent unauthorised deviation or constructions.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other rules in this regard, if the Commissioner or Chief Officer upon a complaint or on suo motu cognizance is satisfied, that the jurisdictional officer has failed to prevent unauthorised deviation or constructions under Section 187-B of the Act, that have taken place in his jurisdiction during his period, he shall call upon the officer concerned by a notice in writing to show cause as to why he shall not be punished and after giving him reasonable opportunity of being heard, pass appropriate order either to drop the proceedings or impose upon him the punishment to pay penalty as below and such process shall be completed normally within two months. - (i) for the first instance he shall be levied with a penalty of not less than ten thousand rupees but not more than twenty-five thousand rupees; (ii) for second instance he shall be levied with a penalty of not less than twenty-five thousand rupees but not more than fifty thousand rupees; and (iii) for third and every subsequent instance the Commissioner or Chief Officer shall initiate further proceedings under Section 342 of the Act, - 33 - NC: 2025:KHC:17373 WP No. 15873 of 2024 depending upon the gravity of the negligence or misconduct or violation. (2) Payment of penalty by the jurisdictional officer under these rules shall not deem to regularise the building plan approved by such Jurisdictional Officer.” 60. As could be seen from the above, a proceeding under these Rules can be initiated either upon a complaint or suo moto by the Commissioner. It contemplates issuance of a notice to the officer asking him to show cause as to why he should not be punished and after considering his objections, the Commissioner could either accept the cause shown and drop the proceedings or impose upon him a penalty as indicated in Rule 3(1)(i) to (iii). 61. An infraction for the first time would invite a penalty of Rs.25,000/- but not more than Rs.50,000/-, an infraction for the second time would invite a penalty of Rs.50,000/- but not more than Rs.1,00,000/- and for the third infraction, the Commissioner is empowered to initiate proceedings under Section 90 of the Act. - 34 - NC: 2025:KHC:17373 WP No. 15873 of 2024 62. Rule 3(2) declares that mere payment of penalty by the jurisdictional officer would not amount to a deemed regularization of the building plan approved by the jurisdictional officer. 63. Rule 4 provides for an appeal to the Regional Commissioner against the order of the Commissioner. 64. If Rule 3 were to be read in conjunction with Section 321B of the KMC Act or Section 252 of the BBMP Act, the objective of the law is to ensure that the jurisdictional officer is given a chance to establish that he was not responsible for the unauthorized construction. If, however, the jurisdictional officer is unable to establish that he did not take adequate steps to prevent the construction the Commissioner is bound to impose a penalty. 65. On a specific query by the Court as to whether these Rules were invoked and action was taken against the erring officers, given the large number of - 35 - NC: 2025:KHC:17373 WP No. 15873 of 2024 unauthorized constructions that have come up and the huge amount of litigation that this has generated, the BBMP filed a memo on 07.02.2025 in respect of the following divisions. The contents of each of the response of the concerned division which are verbatim are as follows: “dAn ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ (£ÀUÀgÀ AiÉÆÃd£É) gÁdgÁeÉñÀéj£ÀUÀgÀ ªÀ®AiÀÄ PÀæ.¸ÀA ¥Àæ±Éß GvÀÛgÀ 1 £ÀPÉë G®èAWÀ£É ¨sÁUÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉgÀªÀÅUÉƽ¸À®Ä «¥sÀ®gÁzÀ C¢üPÁgÀUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÞ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉÆArgÀĪÀ «ªÀgÀ. F vÀºÀ¯ï ªÀgÉUÀÆ F PÀbÉÃj¬ÄAzÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÀæªÀÄPÉÊUÉÆArgÀĪÀÅ¢®è ¸À»/- ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ (£ÀUÀgÀ AiÉÆÃd£É) gÁdgÁeÉñÀéj£ÀUÀgÀ «¨sÁUÀ gÁdgÁeÉñÀéj£ÀUÀgÀ ªÀ®AiÀÄ-©©JA¦ dAn ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ AiÉÆÃd£É (zÀQët ªÀ®AiÀÄ) PÀæ.¸ÀA ¥Àæ±Éß GvÀÛgÀ 1 £ÀPÉë G®èAWÀ£É ¨sÁUÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉgÀªÀÅUÉƽ¸À®Ä «¥sÀ®gÁzÀ C¢üPÁgÀUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÞ PÀæªÀÄPÉÊUÉÆArgÀĪÀ «ªÀgÀ. F vÀºÀ¯ï ªÀgÉUÀÆ F PÀbÉÃj¬ÄAzÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÀæªÀÄPÉÊUÉÆArgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¸À»/- dAn ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ AiÉÆÃd£É (zÀQët) §ÈºÀvï ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ªÀĺÁ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Á°PÉ dAn ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ AiÉÆÃd£É (¥ÀǪÀð ªÀ®AiÀÄ) PÀbÉÃj - 36 - NC: 2025:KHC:17373 WP No. 15873 of 2024 PÀæ.¸ÀA ¥Àæ±Éß GvÀÛgÀ 1 £ÀPÉë G®èAWÀ£É ¨sÁUÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉgÀªÀÅUÉƽ¸À®Ä «¥sÀ®gÁzÀ C¢üPÁgÀUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÞ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉÆArgÀĪÀ «ªÀgÀ. F vÀºÀ¯ï ªÀgÉUÀÆ F PÀbÉÃj¬ÄAzÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÀæªÀÄPÉÊUÉÆArgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¸À»/- dAn ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ AiÉÆÃd£É (¥ÀǪÀð) §ÈºÀvï ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ªÀĺÁ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Á°PÉ PÉÃAzÀæ PÀbÉÃj £ÀUÀgÀ AiÉÆÃd£É GvÀÛgÀ PÀæ.¸ÀA ¥Àæ±Éß GvÀÛgÀ 1 £ÀPÉë G®èAWÀ£É ¨sÁUÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄßvÉgÀªÀÅUÉƽ¸À®Ä «¥sÀ®gÁzÀ C¢üPÁgÀUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÞ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉÆArgÀĪÀ «ªÀgÀ. F vÀºÀ¯ïªÀgÉUÀÆ F PÀbÉÃj¬ÄAzÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÀæªÀÄPÉÊUÉÆArgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¸À»/- dAn ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ AiÉÆÃd£É (GvÀÛgÀ) §ÈºÀvï ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ªÀĺÁ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Á°PÉ PÉÃAzÀæ PÀbÉÃj £ÀUÀgÀ AiÉÆÃd£É zÀQët PÀæ.¸ÀA ¥Àæ±Éß GvÀÛgÀ 1 £ÀPÉë G®èAWÀ£É ¨sÁUÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉgÀªÀÅUÉƽ¸À®Ä «¥sÀ®gÁzÀ C¢üPÁgÀUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÞ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉÆArgÀĪÀ «ªÀgÀ. F vÀºÀ¯ïªÀgÉUÀÆ F PÀbÉÃj¬ÄAzÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÀæªÀÄPÉÊUÉÆArgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¸À»/- dAn ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, £ÀUÀgÀ AiÉÆÃd£É (zÀQët) §ÈºÀvï ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ªÀĺÁ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Á°PÉ dAn ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ AiÉÆÃd£É (ªÀĺÀzÉêÀ¥ÀÅgÀ ªÀ®AiÀÄ) PÀæ.¸ÀA ¥Àæ±Éß GvÀÛgÀ - 37 - NC: 2025:KHC:17373 WP No. 15873 of 2024 1 £ÀPÉë G®èAWÀ£É ¨sÁUÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉgÀªÀÅUÉƽ¸À®Ä «¥sÀ®gÁzÀ C¢üPÁgÀUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÞ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉÆArgÀĪÀ «ªÀgÀ. F vÀºÀ¯ïªÀgÉUÀÆ F PÀbÉÃj¬ÄAzÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÀæªÀÄPÉÊUÉÆArgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¸À»/- dAn ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ AiÉÆÃd£É (ªÀĺÀzÉêÀ¥ÀÅgÀ) §ÈºÀvï ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ªÀĺÁ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Á°PÉ dAn ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ AiÉÆÃd£É (AiÀÄ®ºÀAPÀ ªÀ®AiÀÄ) PÀæ.¸ÀA ¥Àæ±Éß GvÀÛgÀ 1 £ÀPÉë G®èAWÀ£É ¨sÁUÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉgÀªÀÅUÉƽ¸À®Ä «¥sÀ®gÁzÀ C¢üPÁgÀUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÞ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉÆArgÀĪÀ «ªÀgÀ. F vÀºÀ¯ïªÀgÉUÀÆ F PÀbÉÃj¬ÄAzÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÀæªÀÄPÉÊUÉÆArgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¸À»/- dAn ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ AiÉÆÃd£É (AiÀÄ®ºÀAPÀ) §ÈºÀvï ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ªÀĺÁ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Á°PÉ dAn ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ AiÉÆÃd£É (¨ÉƪÀÄä£ÀºÀ½î ªÀ®AiÀÄ) PÀæ.¸ÀA ¥Àæ±Éß GvÀÛgÀ 1 £ÀPÉë G®èAWÀ£É ¨sÁUÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉgÀªÀÅUÉƽ¸À®Ä «¥sÀ®gÁzÀ C¢üPÁgÀUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÞ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉÆArgÀĪÀ «ªÀgÀ. F vÀºÀ¯ïªÀgÉUÀÆ F PÀbÉÃj¬ÄAzÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÀæªÀÄPÉÊUÉÆArgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¸À»/- dAn ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀAiÉÆÃd£É (¨ÉƪÀÄä£ÀºÀ½î) §ÈºÀvï ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ªÀĺÁ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Á°PÉ dAn ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀAiÉÆÃd£É (¥À²ÑªÀÄ ªÀ®AiÀÄ) PÀæ.¸ÀA ¥Àæ±Éß GvÀÛgÀ 1 £ÀPÉë G®èAWÀ£É ¨sÁUÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉgÀªÀÅUÉƽ¸À®Ä F vÀºÀ¯ïªÀgÉUÀÆ F - 38 - NC: 2025:KHC:17373 WP No. 15873 of 2024 «¥sÀ®gÁzÀ C¢üPÁgÀUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÞ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉÆArgÀĪÀ «ªÀgÀ. PÀbÉÃj¬ÄAzÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÀæªÀÄPÉÊUÉÆArgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¸À»/- ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀAiÉÆÃd£É (¥À²ÑªÀÄ) §ÈºÀvï ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ªÀĺÁ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Á°PÉ dAn ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ AiÉÆÃd£É (zÁ¸ÀgÀºÀ½î ªÀ®AiÀÄ) PÀæ.¸ÀA ¥Àæ±Éß GvÀÛgÀ 1 £ÀPÉë G®èAWÀ£É ¨sÁUÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉgÀªÀÅUÉƽ¸À®Ä «¥sÀ®gÁzÀ C¢üPÁgÀUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÞ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉÆArgÀĪÀ «ªÀgÀ. F vÀºÀ¯ïªÀgÉUÀÆ F PÀbÉÃj¬ÄAzÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÀæªÀÄPÉÊUÉÆArgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¸À»/- dAn ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ AiÉÆÃd£É (zÁ¸ÀgÀºÀ½î) §ÈºÀvï ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ªÀĺÁ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Á°PÉ” 66. A reading of the above tabular columns would indicate that though Section 321B was inserted in the year 2007 and the Rules were in fact framed in the year 2019 (that is after a period of 12 years), till date, not a single proceeding has been initiated by the Commissioner against any jurisdictional officer in an area where unauthorized constructions were put up. This would therefore mean that the BBMP has turned a blind eye regarding the unauthorised - 39 - NC: 2025:KHC:17373 WP No. 15873 of 2024 constructions and also towards the inaction of its officers. It would not be incorrect to state that the BBMP has been and is protecting the officers who had allowed the construction to come up in violation of the building bye-laws or the approved building plans. 67. If, despite the fact that Section 321B was inserted in 2007, Rules came to be framed only in the year 2019, this would basically indicate the indifferent manner in which the entire issue of unauthorized constructions has been dealt with by the BBMP. This fundamentally indicates that the BBMP has not taken the issue of unauthorized constructions seriously and seems to be intent on permitting the wrong doers to get away with their wrongdoing. 68. If there is a particular provision of law which has been enacted with the specific purpose of punishing a wrong doer, that intent of the law to punish the wrong doer cannot be nullified by not giving effect to - 40 - NC: 2025:KHC:17373 WP No. 15873 of 2024 the provisions and the Rules made thereunder by the BBMP. 69. If despite the lapse of nearly 18 years, not a single proceeding has been initiated against the jurisdictional officer, it would basically mean that the BBMP has in essence given up or has chosen to ignore the omissions of its officer without realizing that this act of its is encouraging the officers to allow unauthorized constructions to creep up all around the city. 70. If a person who is obligated to ensure the law is allowed to escape the consequences of his omissions, the net result would only be a chaos which is prevalent in the city insofar as it relates to construction of buildings. 71. The memo also contains the list of proceedings that have been initiated against certain officers, though not under Section 321B, but in respect of other - 41 - NC: 2025:KHC:17373 WP No. 15873 of 2024 complaints and the number of proceedings that have been initiated are only numbering about 25 out of which most of them have been closed in same cases is not even been initiated. This would therefore indicate that the entire framework of initiating proceedings is a farce and there is definitely no seriousness involved in these proceedings. 72. At this stage, it may be pertinent to understand the impact of Section 321, now Section 248 and correspondingly to Section 321B and Section 252. 73. As noticed above, Section 321 and 248 contemplate a process where the Commissioner or the Zonal Commissioner enquires into the fact as to whether a building that has been constructed is in violation of the permission granted or in violation of the building bye-laws. 74. The moment, this particular fact, i.e., the unauthorized construction is established after hearing - 42 - NC: 2025:KHC:17373 WP No. 15873 of 2024 the owner of the building, it becomes apparent that the building has in fact been unauthorisedly constructed or constructed in contravention of the permission or the bye-laws notwithstanding the fact that this construction was being supervised and monitored by the jurisdictional officers. As a consequence, this would also mean that the jurisdictional officer, who was supposed to monitor the construction, had failed to prevent the unauthorized construction. The twin effect of this would be that the moment that an order of confirmation is passed, the wrong doing of the owner of the building and also the wrong doing of the officer stands established beyond all doubt and, as a consequence, the offending portion of the building would have to be demolished and, at the same time, a penalty would also have to be imposed on the jurisdictional officer. - 43 - NC: 2025:KHC:17373 WP No. 15873 of 2024 75. Unfortunately, these two processes, which deal with the same issue appears to have been divided and are sought to be dealt with separately, though as a matter of fact in Bangalore not a single proceedings has been initiated against the jurisdictional officer. 76. In reality, proceedings are initiated only against the owner of the building and, as could be seen from the memo that has been filed, there are absolutely no proceedings initiated against the officer. This kind of approach of proceeding only against the owner of the building adopted by the BBMP has ensured only that the owner of the building is punished and the jurisdictional officer who allowed this illegality to be perpetuated is protected and is allowed to escape the rigor of the law. 77. If the BBMP were to take action against not only the owner of the building, but also against its own officer, who is required to regulate the construction, it is rather apparent that this menace of unauthorized - 44 - NC: 2025:KHC:17373 WP No. 15873 of 2024 construction would cease since both the wrong doers would become liable for the illegality committed by them. 78. However, since Rules have been framed under Section 321B, which contemplate a separate and independent proceeding and the fact that the BBMP has not even initiated even a single action against any of its officers, would fundamentally mean that the attempt by the BBMP to prevent the unauthorized construction is a non-existent attempt. This has ensured that the jurisdictional officers have ended up being mute spectators to an unauthorised construction or even worse, willing accomplices to the unauthorised construction. 79. At this stage, it may be pertinent to notice the office orders that have been issued by the BBMP from time to time in relation to the duties cast on its officers in relation to the construction. - 45 - NC: 2025:KHC:17373 WP No. 15873 of 2024 80. The BBMP along with the memo dated 07.02.2025 has produced an official order dated 21.07.2022 and another office order dated 27.07.2023. It has also provided a flow chart showing the stages of action to be taken for removal of violated and demolition of unauthorized construction. There is yet another official order dated 18.10.2024 filed along with the memo dated 24.03.2025 which again provides for the manner in which officers are required to monitor the construction. 81. The first two of the official orders has categorized the construction into three categories. The first category relates to cases where a sanction plan has been obtained, but the construction has been put up in contravention of the sanctioned permission. The second category relates to the category of the buildings or occupancy certificates are obtained and thereafter additions are made in contravention of the sanction plan and third category is in respect of the - 46 - NC: 2025:KHC:17373 WP No. 15873 of 2024 construction which have been put up without any plan obtained. 82. In respect of the first category, the office order requires the jurisdictional officer to conduct an inspection within 30 days of the plan sanctioned and this should be notified at the time of granting sanction itself and, during this spot inspection, the owner of the building or his representative should be present and the building plinth line is to be marked out. 83. The jurisdictional officer is required to take a photograph with GPS coordinates and upload the same to the portal. This was also required to be approved by his superiors. This indicates that at the time of granting the plan itself a joint inspection is to be conducted by the jurisdictional officer and the details of the duties that have been discharged at that time is required to be evidenced by taking photographs and also being uploaded in the internet. - 47 - NC: 2025:KHC:17373 WP No. 15873 of 2024 Thus, even before the construction is to commence the jurisdictional officer is cast with a responsibility by the office order. It would therefore not be difficult for BBMP at least from the first category of cases to identify the person, who was in charge at the time the plan was approved and examine whether his obligations under the office order that is to conduct a joint inspection and taking photographs is complied with or not. Obviously, if this requirement under the office circular is not obeyed or is disregarded, he becomes the first person responsible to prevent the unauthorized construction. 84. The second stage indicated in the order is at the time of identifying the plinth line, the circular stipulates the procedure to be followed by the officer regarding identification of the plinth line, this also requires photographs to be taken along with GPS coordinates and also uploaded to the portal. The circular in fact states that officers who do not comply with this would - 48 - NC: 2025:KHC:17373 WP No. 15873 of 2024 attract penalty under Section 321B of the KMC Act or under Section 252 of the BBMP Act. In fact, this plinth line is to be identified within 60 days of the approval of the plan and the jurisdictional officer is required to conduct periodical inspections and also elaborates the procedure to be followed when proceedings under Sections 321 or 248 is initiated that is for issuance of a provisional order and a confirmatory order. 85. If the BBMP has contemplated an elaborate procedure under its office orders of the year 2022, 2023 and 2024 all of which require a particular procedure to be followed by the jurisdictional officer to monitor the construction, it becomes clear that not only the provisions of the Act, but the circulars issued by the BBMP which are more elaborate and comprehensive provide for specific duties to be discharged by the concerned jurisdictional officers in the matter of monitoring constructions. If despite such elaborate and stringent procedures prescribed by the BBMP, the - 49 - NC: 2025:KHC:17373 WP No. 15873 of 2024 constructions are coming up in gross violation of the sanctioned plan, this is only a testimony to the fact that these office circulars are empty letters and have been ignored in their entirety. 86. It may also be pertinent to notice that this particular aspect relating to the constructions along with the memo dated 27.02.2025, the BBMP has produced the details of the plans that they have sanctioned, the commencement certificates that they have issued and also the occupancy certificates that they have issued from the years 2021-2022 to the year 2023-2024 in respect of the JDTP North, JDTP Mahadevapura, JDTP Yalahanka, Assistant Director Town Planning East, ADTP Rajarajeshwarinagar, ADTP West and JDTP Bommanahalli. 87. These memos, for example, in relation to Bommanahalli is concerned, for the year 2021-22, indicates that though a total of 1,728 plans had been sanctioned, but only 32 commencement certificates - 50 - NC: 2025:KHC:17373 WP No. 15873 of 2024 were issued. Ultimately, in that particular year only 81 occupancy certificates have been issued. 88. Assuming that a construction which was started in the year 2021-22 would take a year or two to complete, the number of occupancy certificates issued for the subsequent years 2022-23, 2023-24 would be relevant and would indicate as to whether the corporation was informed about the building being completed and the necessity for requiring an occupancy certificate. 89. In respect of the years 2022-23 and 2023-24 as against 2202 & 2349 plans that had been sanctioned only 36 and 11 occupancy certificates were granted. 90. It is plainly obvious that if the procedures prescribed by the BBMP had been adhered to, the 1,728 plans that had been sanctioned should have resulted in 1,728 occupancy certificates being issued. In fact, this would also require 1,728 commencement - 51 - NC: 2025:KHC:17373 WP No. 15873 of 2024 certificates to be issued. However, the fact that only 32 commencement certificates were issued as against 1,728 plans (for the year 2021-22), 27 as against 2,202 plans sanctioned (for the year 2022-23) and 20 as against 2,349 plans sanctioned (for the year 2023- 24) would fundamentally indicate that commencement certificates were not applied for and the BBMP has not chosen to adhere to the circulars that had issued which required a joint inspection to be conducted at the time the plan itself was sanctioned and the requirement of photographs being taken from the GPS coordinates and also being uploaded to the internet 91. This essentially indicates that there is a complete failure in the monitoring of constructions by the BBMP and the fact that there is no consequence attached to such omission would only indicate that ensuring a construction being put up in accordance with the plan is not a serious requirement for the BBMP. - 52 - NC: 2025:KHC:17373 WP No. 15873 of 2024 92. It is for this reason that it has become imperative for this Court to direct the BBMP to take appropriate remedial measures, which would ultimately stop this menace of unauthorized construction. This stark and deliberate ignorance of monitoring construction by the officers would essentially lead to the inference that the officers have turned a blind eye deliberately for extraneous reasons and they do not really care about discharging their obligation of monitoring the constructions. This is obviously because there is no consequence attached to their failure and, they are certain that no action would be taken against them, and they are immune from any action. 93. As stated above, if the entire objective of the act is to ensure that proceedings have been initiated not only in respect of the owner of the building, but also against the jurisdictional officer, who allowed the construction to come up, it is necessary that whenever the proceeding under Section 248 is - 53 - NC: 2025:KHC:17373 WP No. 15873 of 2024 initiated by the BBMP, a simultaneous proceeding would also have to be initiated against the jurisdictional officer. 94. It will have to be made clear here that the BBMP cannot proceed against the owner of the building and the unauthorised construction without proceedings against its officers who had failed to prevent the unauthorised construction. 95. It appears that the BBMP has delegated the power of issuing a provisional order to the Engineers and reliance is sought to be placed on Section 74(d) to support this delegation of powers. 96. Section 74(d) provides for the Zonal Commissioner, subject to the Rules made by the Government, to delegate to any officer of the Corporation subordinate to him of any of his ordinary powers, duties and functions. - 54 - NC: 2025:KHC:17373 WP No. 15873 of 2024 97. The power to make a determination as to whether a building is unauthorized or not and the question as to whether the jurisdictional officer has failed to prevent the unauthorized construction cannot be termed as an ordinary power of the Zonal Commissioner which can be delegated. 98. It is settled law that the power of adjudication is a quasi-judicial function cast on an administrative authority and this administrative authority cannot delegate this quasi-judicial power of adjudication to his subordinates. If the power to adjudicate is delegated, it would basically mean that the power of adjudication entrusted to one entity is being discharged by another entity, though the statute did not provide for it. 99. It is therefore clear that the power provided under Section 74(d) to delegate the ordinary powers, cannot be utilized by the corporation to delegate the power to initiating proceedings under Section 248 on - 55 - NC: 2025:KHC:17373 WP No. 15873 of 2024 any person. To put it differently, the power to initiate proceedings under Section 248 would only lay with the Zonal Commissioner and not with any other authority. 100. In this regard, Rules that have been framed under Section 321B and which continue to be in force under Section 252 also contemplate the Commissioner to initiate proceedings under the jurisdictional officers. Having regard to the fact that the power to impose a penalty on the jurisdictional officer is also conferred on the Commissioner (now the Zonal Commissioner), the appropriate procedure to be followed would be to direct the Zonal Commissioner to initiate proceedings under Section 248 and 252 simultaneously in the following manner. a. Whenever any question as to whether an unauthorized construction comes up for consideration the Zonal Commissioner, the Zonal Commissioner shall initiate proceedings - 56 - NC: 2025:KHC:17373 WP No. 15873 of 2024 simultaneously both under Section 248 and also under Section 252 against the owner of the Building and also against all the jurisdictional officers who were required to monitor the constructions. b. The Zonal Commissioner shall not only pass a provisional order against the owner of the building, he shall also at the same time, also issue notice to all the jurisdictional officers as provided under the Rules, who were in charge during the period of construction and who were supposed to monitor the construction as per the office circulars issued by the BBMP, calling upon them to show cause as to why action should not be taken against them for their failure to prevent the unauthorized construction. c. The Zonal Commissioner shall club the proceedings initiated under Section 321 of the KMC Act and Section 248 of the BBMP Act and - 57 - NC: 2025:KHC:17373 WP No. 15873 of 2024 also under the Rules framed under Section 321B of the KMC Act (which continue to be applicable for proceedings under Section 252) and consider them jointly. d. The Zonal Commissioner shall not deal with these two proceedings separately or independently. e. The Zonal Commissioner shall after considering the objections of the owner of the building and also the jurisdictional officer/s proceed to pass an order of confirmation if it is established that the construction is indeed illegal and contrary to the sanctioned plan or the Bye-laws and he shall also impose a penalty against the concerned and jurisdictional officers who had failed to prevent the unauthorised construction. f. On an order of confirmation being passed, the Zonal Commissioner shall also pass an order - 58 - NC: 2025:KHC:17373 WP No. 15873 of 2024 that the offending portion shall be demolished and the cost incurred for demolishing the offending portion shall be recovered equally i.e., both from the owner of the building and also from the jurisdictional officer/s who had failed to prevent the unauthorised constructions. g. It is made clear that unless the cost of demolishing the unauthorized construction of the offending portion is recovered from the jurisdictional officers, the BBMP shall not proceed to demolish the unauthorised construction. 101. Though, it may be argued that this direction would amount to creating an additional penalty against the jurisdictional officers, in reality, it is only an order that is consequential to the order of demolition or the order of penalty. In these recent times when the cost of construction is huge, imposing an insignificant penalty and imposing the burden on the exchequer to - 59 - NC: 2025:KHC:17373 WP No. 15873 of 2024 demolish an offending structure on the people who were responsible for it cannot be an additional penalty, but is only the consequences of their failure to do a duty. The Commissioner shall therefore pass a specific order stating that the cost of construction shall be borne equally by the owner of the building and the concerned jurisdictional officers, who allowed the construction to come up. 102. The Zonal Commissioner would have to then take into consideration the non-adherence of the requirements specified in their orders of the year 2022, 2023 and 2024, which required the officers to visit the building site at every stage, capture photographs with GPS coordinates and upload them in order to ascertain at which state there was a lapse. It is obvious that, if a construction has come up and is completed, the officers, who were working at the time the building commenced, the officers who were discharging their duty during the period of construction and, the - 60 - NC: 2025:KHC:17373 WP No. 15873 of 2024 officers who were working at the time of building was completed will all be responsible. 103. If, however, the offending construction is discovered midway, then the officers who were discharging the duties until then would be responsible. 104. The Commissioner shall issue a circular detailing this particular aspect and the procedure that would be followed in cases where action is initiated against unauthorized constructions. The Commissioner shall ensure that a copy of this instruction which are comprehensive and elaborate are placed before this Court notwithstanding the disposal of this writ petition within a period of six weeks. 105. At this stage, it is to be noticed that any action to be initiated on the basis of this order, if applied retrospectively, would affect a large number of officers, who were probably unaware of their requirement. In order to ensure that this difficulty is - 61 - NC: 2025:KHC:17373 WP No. 15873 of 2024 overcome, it is hereby made clear that this order of proceeding against the owners of the offending building and the jurisdictional officer/s, who fail to prevent the unauthorized construction, shall be given effect to from 15.06.2025. 106. This petition is accordingly disposed of. 107. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE GSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 69