- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26092 WP No. 17377 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.17377 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: SRI B.V.CHANDRASHEKAR S/O VENKATACHALAM. T. V AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.29, (OLD NO.860) 4TH MAIN, VIJAYANAGAR BENGALURU - 560040 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NARAYANA SWAMY P M, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R.SQUARE CORPORATION BUILDING BENGALURU-560002 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER VIJAYANAGAR SUB DIVISION BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE BENGALURU - 560040 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER VIJAYANAGAR SUB DIVISION WARD NO.145 (123) Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26092 WP No. 17377 of 2025 BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE BENGALURU - 560040 4. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH) BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE JAYANAGAR BENGALURU …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR RAIKOTE, ADVOCATE FOR R.1 TO R.4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01/03/2025 IN APPEAL NO.260/2024 ISSUED BY THE R1 - CHIEF COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N R SQUARE, CORPORATION BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560002, IN RESPECT OF PETITIONERS PROPERTY BEARING SITE NO.29, (OLD NO.860) HAVING PID NO.33-6-29, SITUATED AT 4TH MAIN ROAD, HOSAHALLI, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560040, MEASURING EAST TO WEST 31 PLUS 32/2 FEET OR 9.59 METERS AND NORTH TO SOUTH 51 FEET OR 15.54 METERES, TOTALLY MEASURING 149.02 SQ METERES, ANNX-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed assailing the order dated 01.03.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority by - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26092 WP No. 17377 of 2025 respondent No.1 in Appeal No.260/2024 under Section 253 of the BBMP Act, 2020 as per Annexure-A, the Provisional Order dated 07.06.2024 passed by respondent No.2 as per Annexure -B and the Confirmation Order dated 24.06.2024 passed by respondent No.2 under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020 as per Annexure C. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4. 3. The short point that would arise for consideration at the hands of this Court is as to whether respondent No.1 - Appellate Authority has examined the confirmation order properly conducting an enquiry before dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner in Appeal No.260/2024. 4. Though the learned counsel appearing for the BBMP has contended that the Appellate Authority has rightly appreciated the materials on record and has confirmed the Confirmation Order of demolition issued - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26092 WP No. 17377 of 2025 under Section 243(3) of the BBMP Act, this Court is not inclined to accept the said submission. 5. A perusal of the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority, particularly at paragraph No.12 of the impugned judgment, reveals that the Authority has failed to properly apply its mind to the factual matrix of the case. While a tabular statement has been drawn in the body of the order purportedly indicating violations by the petitioner, including deviation from the sanctioned building plan, the Authority has not assigned cogent or detailed reasons in support of its conclusions. The discussion is perfunctory and lacks analytical clarity. 6. The dismissal of the appeal by respondent No.1 appears to rest predominantly on the ground that the petitioner has undertaken construction activity without securing a building license and prior approval of the building plan. However, such a finding is not substantiated with reference to specific materials on record or any - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26092 WP No. 17377 of 2025 inspection reports. The absence of a reasoned analysis undermines the credibility of the decision-making process. 7. In this context, paragraph No.12 of the judgment assumes significance and warrants reproduction for proper appreciation. The same reads as under: "12. ¢£ÁAPÀ 07.06.2024 gÀAzÀÄ ¥ÀæPÀgÀt ¸ÀASÉå.¸À.PÁ.C/«.G.«/¦.N/01/ 2024-05 gÀ°è JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÀ vÁvÁÌ°PÀ DzÉñÀzÀ £ÀPÀ®Ä, ¢£ÁAPÀ 07.06.2024 gÀAzÀÄ PÁgÀt PÉý ¤ÃrzÀ £ÉÆÃnù£À £ÀPÀ®Ä, ¢£ÁAPÀ 24.06.2024gÀAzÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ ¹ÜÃjPÀgÀt DzÉñÀzÀ £ÀPÀ®ÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹ £ÉÆÃrzÁUÀ, JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ, ªÉÄÃ¯É £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹zÀAvÀºÀ ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀgÀ ¸ÀéwÛ£À ¸ÀܼÀ ¥Àj²Ã®£É ªÀiÁr £ÉÆÃr, ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀéwÛ£À°è ¥ÀgÀªÁ£ÀV ºÁUÀÆ C£ÀĪÉÆâvÀ £ÀPÉëAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄzÉà C£À¢üPÀÈvÀªÁV PÀlÖqÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÀlÖ¯ÁVzÉ JAzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ vÁvÁÌ°PÀ DzÉñÀ (provisional Order) ªÀiÁrzÁÝgÉ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß, D jÃw DzÉñÀ ªÀiÁrzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ, C£À¢üPÀÈvÀªÁV PÀnÖzÀ PÀlÖqÀªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆqÉzÀĺÁPÀĪÀªÀgÉUÀÆ PÀlÖqÀzÀ PÀ®¸ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀÜVvÀUÉƽ¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ vÁvÁÌ°PÀ DzÉñÀ (Provisional Order) ªÀ£ÀÄß ¥Á®£É ªÀiÁrzÀ §UÉÎ 15 ¢£ÀUÀ¼ÉƼÀUÁV ¸ÀÆPÀÛ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÀªÀÄeÁ¬Ä¶ ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ. E®èzÉà EzÀÝgÉ ¹ÜjÃPÀgÀt DzÉñÀ (Confirmation Order) ªÀiÁr PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉƼÀî¯ÁUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ JAzÀÄ PÁgÀt PÉüÀĪÀ £ÉÆÃnøÀ£ÀÄß ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀjUÉ PÉÆnÖzÁÝgÉ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß, D jÃw ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀjUÉ ¤ÃrzÀ CªÀ¢ü UÀw¹zÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ ¹ÜjÃPÀgÀt DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrzÁÝgÉ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß ªÉÄÃ¯É £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹zÀAvÀºÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ vÉÆÃj¹PÉÆqÀÄvÀÛªÉ." - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26092 WP No. 17377 of 2025 8. The extracted portion of the order clearly reveals that the Appellate Authority has not properly applied its mind to the facts and material placed on record. There is no indication of a detailed or independent enquiry having been conducted by the Appellate Authority to ascertain the nature and extent of the alleged violations. The appeal has been dismissed primarily on the premise that the petitioner had undertaken construction without obtaining a building license and approval of the building plan. 9. However, the records unequivocally indicate that the petitioner had, in fact, secured an approved building plan prior to commencement of construction. It is also pertinent to note that the original order of demolition has been passed on the ground that the petitioner has violated the sanctioned building plan, not that there was an absence of approval altogether. This inconsistency between the findings of the original authority and the Appellate Authority clearly reflects a lack of application of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26092 WP No. 17377 of 2025 mind and failure to examine the relevant materials in its proper perspective. 10. Given the contradictory findings and the failure of the Appellate Authority to consider the petitioner's case in accordance with law and established procedure, this Court is of the view that the matter warrants reconsideration. Accordingly, the impugned orders are held to be unsustainable in law and are hereby set-aside, reserving liberty to the Appellate Authority to re-adjudicate the matter after affording due opportunity to all parties concerned. 11. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 01.03.2025 in Appeal No.260/2024 passed by respondent - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26092 WP No. 17377 of 2025 No.1 as per Annexure-A is hereby quashed and set-aside. (iii) The matter stands remitted back to the Appellate Authority. (iv) The Appellate Authority shall re-hear the matter after affording opportunity to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law. (v) Since the parties are represented by their respective counsel, the petitioner is directed to appear before the Authority on 01.08.2025 without expecting any further notice. (vi) All contentions are kept open. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11