- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47372 WP No. 3299 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 3299 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. SRI KRISHNA INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOL 3RD AND 4TH CROSS, LAKSHMAN NAGAR, OPP: MOHAN THEATRE, HEGGANAHALLI CROSS, BANGALORE-560 091. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2. SRI. KRISHNA SWAMY RAJU S. S/O LATE SHAMANNA H., AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT NO.27, PARK ROAD, NEAR SRINIVASA HOSPITAL, TULASI THOTAM, BANGALORE - 53. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SRIKANTH M.P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002. 2. THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HEGGANAHALLI SUB-DIVISION, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, DASARAHALLI RANGE, Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47372 WP No. 3299 of 2025 NEAR INDIRA CANTEEN, 1ST CROSS, SRIGANDHANAGARA MAIN ROAD, SRIGANDHANAGARA, BENGALURU- 560 091. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE BEARING NO.SA.KA.AA./HE.HU.VI./PI.R./70/2024-25 DATED 05.12.2024 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioners have challenged a notice bearing No.¸ÀPÁC/ºÉG«/¦Dgï/70/2024-25 dated 05.12.2024 issued by the respondent No.3. The petitioners have also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondent No.3 to drop all further proceedings pursuant to the aforesaid notice dated 05.12.2024. 2. (i) The petitioners claim that the petitioner No.2 is the owner of the sites bearing Nos.11, 12, 15 and 16 carved out of Assessment No.17/3, Hegganahalli, Yeshwanthpura - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47372 WP No. 3299 of 2025 Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, lying within the limits of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike. The petitioners claim that sites mentioned above were part of the private layout and there are similar other properties in the vicinity. The petitioners claim that since the sites were revenue properties, they were not provided with a sanctioned plan and hence, construction put up by them is in accordance with the relevant building byelaws. The building is leased in favour of M/s. Shri Nimishamba Devi Educational Society (R) for a period of 30 years. (ii) The petitioners contend that the petitioner No.2 was issued with a notice dated 05.12.2024 under Section 313 of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 (henceforth referred to as 'BBMP Act, 2020') calling upon him to furnish documents such as khata, sanctioned plan, commencement certificate etc., within three days from the date of receipt of a notice. The petitioners submitted a representation on 09.12.2024 and requested for more time to verify the documents and produce them. Later, petitioner No.1 submitted a representation dated 03.01.2025 to the respondent No.3 and informed him that the property tax is paid by the petitioner No.2 and that power under Section 313 of BBMP Act, 2020 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47372 WP No. 3299 of 2025 cannot be delegated to any other authority. It was also brought to the notice of respondent No.3 that even though tax was collected, it had not issued khata and had not sanctioned building plan on the ground that the property was entered in the 'B' register. (iii) The petitioners being aggrieved by the notice dated 05.12.2024 are before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that under Section 74 of the BBMP Act, 2020, there is a provision for delegation of powers. He submits that a notice under Section 313 of the BBMP Act, 2020, has to be issued by the Zonal Commissioner and no rules are framed to delegate the powers of the Zonal Commissioner to the respondent No.3. He thus contends that the impugned notice issued by the respondent No.3 is without authority of law and therefore, prays that the notice be quashed. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents after securing instructions from the concerned officer fairly submits that rules are not framed to delegate the powers of the Zonal Commissioner and that as the matter now stands, a notice - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47372 WP No. 3299 of 2025 under Section 313 of BBMP Act, 2020 can alone be issued by the Zonal Commissioner. He however, submits that since the BBMP Act, 2020 is now repealed by the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024, steps would be taken to address this issue and appropriate notices would be issued to the petitioners in accordance with law. 5. In view of the aforesaid submission, the petitioners have to succeed. Accordingly, the following order is passed: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned notice bearing No.¸ÀPÁC/ºÉG«/¦Dgï/70/2024-25 dated 05.12.2024 issued by the respondent No.3 is quashed. (iii) The respondent No.3 is directed not to take any action pursuant to the impugned notice, which is quashed by this Court. (iv) It is however, open for the respondent No.1 to proceed in accordance with law as provided under the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024 and the rules, if any, framed therein. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47372 WP No. 3299 of 2025 6. Sri. Pawan Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents is permitted to file memo of appearance within ten days from today. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8