- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29956 WP No. 23342 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 23342 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. K.C.KAVITHA W/O B. DINESH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT NO.362, 2ND CROSS 3RD STAGE, 3RD BLOCK BASAVESHWARANAGARA BANGALORE-560 079. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINIVAS V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGAR PALIKE N.R. SQUARE, BANGALURU-560 002. 2. THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR ZONE BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGAR PALIKE N.R.SQUARE, BANGALURU-560 002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29956 WP No. 23342 of 2025 ORDER DATED 09.07.2025 BEARING NO.21/RRN/PO/352/2025- 26 PASSED UNDER SECTION 248(3) OF THE BBMP ACT, 2020 BY RESPONDENT NO.2 ANNEXURE-H TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER 1. It is seen that the petitioner is having an alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 253 of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020. However the petitioner submits that the construction has been put up on 'B' khatha property. He further submits that though the petitioner has not obtained the necessary plan sanction, the construction is put up as per the building bye-laws and there is a provision in law to regularize the same. He further submits that a direction may be issued to the authorities concerned to consider the petitioner's request for regularization. He also submits that if it is found after - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29956 WP No. 23342 of 2025 inspection that the construction put up is in violation of the building bye-law, petitioner has no objection for demolition of that portion of the building, which violates the building bye-laws. 2. Admittedly, the petitioner is having an alternative and efficacious remedy. For the said reason, I am of the opinion it would be appropriate to dispose of the writ petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority in accordance with law. However taking note of the submission made by the petitioner in paragraph No.1 supra, I deem it appropriate to grant her temporary protection for a period of three weeks. 3. Hence the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition disposed of reserving the liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum in the manner known to law; - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29956 WP No. 23342 of 2025 (ii) However, respondents shall not precipitate the matter against the petitioner for a period of three weeks from today. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11