- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:771 WP No. 35416 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 35416 OF 2024 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. MRS. WAHEEDA KHAN, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, W/O MR. FAIROZ KHAN, 2. MRS. SHARIQA AMBER FAIROZ, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF MR. FAIROZ KHAN, 3. MRS. DANIYA RAFATH FAIROZ, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF MR. FAIROZ KHAN, ALL THE PETITIONERS RESIDING AT NO. 679, 7TH MAIN, 10TH CROSS, BTM LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE SOUTH, KARNATAKA - 560 076. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. YABESH M, ADVOCATE) AND: BBMP, BOMMANAHALLI ZONE, HSR LAYOUT, (REPRESENTED BY BBMP ZONAL COMMISSIONER), BOMMANAHALLI, BDA COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, HSR LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 02. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:771 WP No. 35416 of 2024 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE IMPUGNED TEMPORARY ORDER ISSUED BY THE (BBMP) BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGAR PALIKE, BOMMANAHALLI ZONE, BENGALURU DISTRICT, IN VA.AA.BO/P.O/1699/2024-25 DTD. 10.12.2024 FOR SITE NO. 16 IN SURVEY NO. 41, KHATHA NUMBER 1093/1070/407/16 SITUATED AT GARVEBAVIPALYA, BANGALORE 560068 AS PER BBMP RULE 2020, COLUMN 248(1) TEMPORARY ORDER, AS PER BBMP RULE 2020 COLUMN 248(1) TEMPORARY ORDER, AS PER THE ANNX-A PASSED BY RESPONDENT FOR THE SITE A AND ETC., 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 Petition is filed challenging the order passed under section 248(1) of the BBMP Act 2020. This order is only a provisional order and hence challenge to it cannot be entertained. 2. Learned counsel for the BBMP also submits that the petitioner has in fact filed objections to the reply and the same is under consideration. The counsel for the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:771 WP No. 35416 of 2024 petitioner submits that as a matter of fact, the petitioner had sought for approval of the building plan, but no orders were passed on the said application and since there is a provision contemplated deemed sanction, in law, the building cannot be considered to be an illegal building. He also submits that objections are also filed in this regard to this effect. 3. Learned counsel for BBMP further submits that there is a doubt as to whether the land of the petitioner falls within the buffer zone and the thasildar has been requested to furnish his stand and also the petitioner submits that as a matter of fact the sketch which is produced along with the memo today indicates that the site of the petitioner is outside the buffer zone. 4. In my view, since the petitioner has filed objections to the provisional order, the only direction that is necessary to be given is to direct the BBMP to consider the objections filed by him before it passes an order of confirmation. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:771 WP No. 35416 of 2024 5. It is made clear that the contention raised by the petitioner that there is a deemed sanction and that the land falls outside the buffer zone shall also be specifically considered by the BBMP before it passes an order of confirmation. 6. It is needless to state that until an order of confirmation is passed, the BBMP shall not take any action against the petitioner. Even if an order is passed against the petitioner, reasonable time may be granted to the petitioner to prefer an appeal. Subject to the above, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE RCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54 CT: BHK