- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2665 WP No. 32847 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 32847 OF 2024 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: M/S STEWARDS ASSOCIATION IN INDIA NO.7 (4), JOHN ARMSTRONG ROAD RICHARDS TOWN P O BOX NO. 563 BENGALURU 560 005 REPRSENTED BY ITS PRESENT GENERAL SECRETARY MR. RAJU M KOSHY. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. V SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA POLIKE N R SQUARE BENGALURU 560 002. 2. THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE MAHADEVAPURA ZONE BENGALURU 560 066. 3. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE MAHADEVAPURA ZONE BENGALURU 560 066. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR RAIKOTE., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2665 WP No. 32847 of 2024 FOR A RECORDS IN APPEAL NO.119/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE BEFORE THE HONBLE CHIEF COMMISSIONER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGAR PALIKE AT BENGALURU (R-1). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. A provisional order was issued under Section 248(1) of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 (for short, ‘the Act’) to the petitioner contending that the structure put up by it was illegal. 2. In response to the provisional order, the petitioner filed its objections, but nevertheless, the authorities passed a confirmatory order holding that the construction was illegal. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred to the Appellate Authority and in the appeal it was categorically averred that the construction, in question, was pursuant to a plan sanctioned by the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2665 WP No. 32847 of 2024 panchayat in the year 1982 which was also renewed in the year 1985. 4. The exact averment is reproduced as follows- “06. The respondent after considering the reply dated 14.06.2023, comparing the produced sanction plan, which is said to have been obtained by the village panchayath in way back 09.02.1982 and renewal was made on 06.07.1985 with the built building, the scheduled property has been constructed in violation of sanctioned plan and building bye- laws and revised master plan-2015, hence the respondent issued sec. 248(1 & 2) of BBMP – Act on 09.08.2023, and after providing an opportunity to file objections / reply or for compliance when the appellant failed either to give reply notice or to comply the provisional order, the confirmation order was issued on 15.09.2023. Aggrieved by the said order the appellant has filed this appeal and prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned order.” 5. It is the case of the petitioner that the construction was made in the year 1984 even before the area - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2665 WP No. 32847 of 2024 came within the purview of the BBMP is alleged to be illegal by the issuance of the provisional order in the year 2023 and the contention raised by the petitioner regarding the construction put up prior to 1985 has not been considered at all. 6. A perusal of the reasoning of the Appellate Authority does not indicate any contention that is raised by the petitioner that they had erected the structure pursuant to the plan said to have been sanctioned by the Village Panchayat in the year 1982 and renewed in the year 1985 has been considered. I am, therefore, of the view that the order of the Appellate Authority cannot be sustained and will have to be quashed. 7. The Appellate Authority is directed to re-consider the entire matter keeping in mind the objections that have been raised by the petitioner not only to the provisional order, but also the grounds that had been raised in support of the appeal, including the ground - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2665 WP No. 32847 of 2024 that the structure was erected way back in the year 1985. This Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed. 8. Since both the parties are represented, they shall appear before the Appellate Authority on 12.02.2025 and take necessary instructions. 9. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26