- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26134 WP No. 16569 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 16569 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. HARSHITHA W/O SANTHOSH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 2. MASTER KUSHIKUMAR S/O SRI SANTHOSH KUMAR AND HARSHITHA AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS SINCE MINOR HE IS REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT HARSHITHA BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.3 43/A, 5TH CROSS ROAD ANDHRA COLONY OPP HANUMAN JUNCTION PARK A. NARAYANAPURA, BENGALURU - 560016. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. LAKSHMAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI ANNADORAI S/O LATE SADANANDAM AGED 53 YEARS R/AT NO.317, 5TH CROSS ANDHRA COLONY, A. NARAYANAPRA BANGALORE - 560016. Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26134 WP No. 16569 of 2025 2. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BBMP HEAD OFFICE, N.R.SQUARE BANGALORE - 560002. 3. THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER BBMP, MAHADEVAPURA ZONE NEAR PHEONIX MALL, MAHADEVAPURA BENGALURU - 560048. 4. ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER - BBMP 5. THE ASST. ENGINEER - BBMP BOTH R4 AND R5 ARE WORKING AT BBMP - HAL AIRPORT SUB-DIVN., MEG LAYOUT, 2ND MAIN ROAD AKASHNAGAR, BENGALURU - 560016. 6. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M S BUILDING DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.V. BATHEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE NO. BBMP/AEE/AIRPORT/SUB-DIVN/66/2025-26 DATED 08.05.2025 ISSUED BY BBMP (R4) I.E. (ANNEXURE-A) TILL DISPOSAL OF THE WRIT PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26134 WP No. 16569 of 2025 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed challenging the notice dated 08.05.2025 issued by respondent No. 4 under Section 356 of BBMP Act, 2020. 2. The facts leading to the case are as under: The petitioners have undertaken construction in the schedule property. While private respondent No. 1 has filed a bare suit for injunction in O.S.No.796/2020 against petitioner, petitioner has filed a suit in OS.No.2277/2021 against private respondent No. 1. These two suits are pending. Petitioners also submits that respondent No. 1 has filed a fresh suit in OS.No. 8983/2024 seeking the relief of mandatory injunction against the BBMP officers to demolish the construction undertaken by the petitioners. 3. The petitioners’ primary grievance before this Court is that, in blatant disregard of the directions issued by this Court in MFA No.6047/2021 c/w MFA No.3689/2022, the officers of the BBMP have proceeded to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26134 WP No. 16569 of 2025 issue a provisional order and subsequently confirmed the same by passing a final order under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020. The petitioners contend that such action is in gross violation of the binding order passed by this Court. 4. Petitioners' counsel reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition would bring to the notice of this Court that the notice issued under Section 356 of the BBMP Act is liable to be quashed as it runs contrary to the directions issued by this Court in the order evidenced at Annexure-D. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for BBMP officials would point out that the judgment rendered by this Court in MFA.No.6047/2021 c/w MFA. No.3689/2022, has not taken away the right of BBMP to initiate an enquiry against petitioners' construction undertaken in the scheduled property. The reliance is placed on the operative portion at (a) of the order. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26134 WP No. 16569 of 2025 6. On closer examination of the records, this Court has noticed that the two rival suits are pending at the instance of petitioners and respondent No. 1. An independent suit in OS.No. 8983/2024 is also pending wherein respondent No. 1 is seeking relief of mandatory injunction against BBMP officials, while petitioner is not a party to the said proceedings. 7. This Court in numerous judgments has consistently held that in case of encroachments, the aggrieved party has to avail the remedy before a competent civil Court and seek appropriate reliefs. However, where constructions are undertaken by an owner in the property owned by him and when there is a violation of setback rules and building plan, the remedy of an adjoining owner is to seek recourse under the provisions of local authorities, i.e., either under the BBMP Act or Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, as the case may be. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26134 WP No. 16569 of 2025 8. While this Court in the two connected appeals namely MFA.No.6047/21 c/w MFA.No.3689/2022 permitted petitioners to accomplish the external plastering of the western wall of their building, however, this Court was of the view that such an action would be subject to the final decision in the two suits, as well as the decision of the competent authorities under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. Therefore, this Court deems it fit to extract the operative portion at (a) of the order, which has a direct bearing on the stand taken by the petitioner, which reads as under: "(a) The appeals are disposed of permitting the appellants to complete the external plastering of the western wall of their building within a period of eight(8) weeks from today without claiming any equities, and subject to the final decision in the two suits and the decision of the competent authorities under the provisions of the KMC Act." 9. Upon a careful examination of the directions earlier issued by this Court, this Court is of the considered - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26134 WP No. 16569 of 2025 view that the contention urged by the petitioners that the respondent-authorities are precluded from initiating any enquiry under the provisions of the BBMP Act, 2020 in light of the pendency of civil suits is wholly misconceived and legally untenable. The mere pendency of two suits, one filed by the petitioners and another by respondent No.1, cannot be construed as a legal embargo restraining the competent authority from discharging its statutory obligations under the BBMP Act. 10. It is a well-settled principle that proceedings under municipal law, particularly in relation to unauthorized constructions, operate independently of civil proceedings, and the local body retains its jurisdiction to enforce compliance with building regulations, planning permissions, and statutory obligations. There exists no provision in law that bars the competent authority from taking cognizance of or proceeding against illegal constructions merely because the subject property is involved in civil litigation. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26134 WP No. 16569 of 2025 11. In the present case, the designated officer of BBMP has strictly adhered to the procedural safeguards prescribed under the Act. A provisional order was first issued to the petitioners, affording them an opportunity to present their case. Thereafter, following due enquiry and consideration of the petitioners’ response, a confirmation order was passed under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020, thereby finalizing the finding of illegality in the construction. 12. In this background, the subsequent notice issued under Section 356 of the BBMP Act must be viewed as a consequential action, predicated upon the prior confirmation order under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act. Once a confirmation order has attained finality and has not been challenged in a manner known to law, it cannot be bypassed or nullified through a writ petition that merely assails the consequential steps taken under Section 356 of the BBMP Act. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26134 WP No. 16569 of 2025 13. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that the present writ petition filed to challenge the notice under Section 356 of the BBMP Act, without laying a challenge to the underlying confirmation order passed under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act is not maintainable. The petitioners, if aggrieved, ought to have availed themselves of the statutory remedies available for challenging the confirmation order. Having failed to do so, they cannot now be permitted to circumvent the statutory framework and invite interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. 14. However, this Court is inclined to grant some protection to the petitioners till the petitioners avail the remedy in the manner known to law. 15. With the above observation, this Court proceeds to pass the following: - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26134 WP No. 16569 of 2025 ORDER (i) The writ petition stands disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioners to avail the remedy of an appeal in accordance with law, as provided under the provisions of the BBMP Act, 2020. (ii) The petitioners shall be entitled to the benefit of interim protection, for a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, to enable them to pursue the appellate remedy. Till then, respondents shall not enforce the order passed under Section 248(3) of the Act. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19