- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24956 WP No. 18502 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 18502 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: MR. B.K. PRABHAKAR, SON OF MR. KRISHNOJI RAO, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.7, 5TH MAIN ROAD, HEBBAL, BENGALURU - 560 002. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINIVAS V, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002. 2. THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER, EAST ZONE, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BENGALURU - 560 002. 3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HEBBAL SUB DIVISION, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, J.C. NAGAR MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 006. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3) Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24956 WP No. 18502 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OF LIKE NATURE AND SET ASIDE THE CONFIRMATION ORDER DATED 31/05/2025 BEARING NO-VA.AA.(PU)/PR/09/25-26 PASSED UNDER SECTION 248(3) AND UNDER SECTION 356(1) OF THE BBMP ACT, 2020 OF BY THE RESPONDENT NO 2 VIDE ANNEXURE L AND IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER CONCERNED 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 petition is filed assailing the confirmation order passed by respondent No.2 under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020 (for short, 'Act') and consequential order under Section 356(1) of the Act as per Annexure-L. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3. Perused the records. 3. The petitioner is the absolute owner of the immovable property bearing Corporation No.27 (Old No.7), PID No.96-77-27, situated within the jurisdiction of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). The - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24956 WP No. 18502 of 2025 petitioner has acquired title to the said property by virtue of a registered gift deed dated 06.08.2011. Pursuant to the said acquisition, the BBMP has issued a Khata in favour of the petitioner, thereby recognizing his ownership. Since the date of acquisition, the petitioner has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property and has regularly discharged his statutory obligations by remitting property taxes to the BBMP. The payment of taxes is duly evidenced by the tax paid receipts produced at Annexures-B and C. 4. The petitioner further states that he has obtained a duly sanctioned building plan and license for the construction of a residential building on the said property. The sanctioned plan was obtained in accordance with the applicable building bye-laws and regulations. The petitioner specifically avers that the construction has been undertaken strictly in compliance with the sanctioned plan and without any deviation. He has ensured that all the mandatory setbacks, as prescribed under the sanction - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24956 WP No. 18502 of 2025 plan, have been duly maintained and adhered to during the course of construction. Thus, there is no contravention of the building norms or any deviation from the approved plan. 5. The grievance of the petitioner primarily pertains to the legality of the action initiated by the respondent authorities under Section 248 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The petitioner submits that he was never served with the provisional order issued under Section 248(1) of the Act. In support of this contention, the petitioner draws attention to the postal receipt enclosed with the provisional order, which indicates that the notice was dispatched to an incorrect address. On a careful comparison of the address mentioned in the captioned writ petition and the address reflected in the said postal receipt, this Court finds that there is a clear discrepancy. The address on the postal receipt does not correspond with the petitioner's correct residential address. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24956 WP No. 18502 of 2025 6. This material irregularity in service of notice assumes significance, as the issuance and proper service of the provisional order under Section 248(1) is a mandatory precondition for initiating any demolition proceedings. Failure to serve the petitioner with the provisional order amounts to a breach of the principles of natural justice, particularly the right to prior notice and an opportunity to be heard before adverse action is taken. 7. Consequently, any subsequent action taken by the respondent authorities, including the confirmation order under Section 248(3) and the implementation order under Section 356(1) of the Act, is rendered legally unsustainable and vitiated on account of non-compliance with the mandatory procedural requirements under the Act. 8. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the proceedings initiated by respondents No.2 and 3 suffer from a fundamental - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24956 WP No. 18502 of 2025 procedural infirmity. The enquiry initiated against the petitioner stands vitiated and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. However, this shall not preclude the competent authorities from re-initiating the enquiry afresh, after complying with all procedural safeguards, including proper service of notice on the petitioner. If such an enquiry is initiated, the authorities shall determine, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, whether there has in fact been any violation of the sanctioned plan, particularly with regard to setback norms, notwithstanding the existence of an approved building plan and license. 9. For the foregoing reasons, this Court passes the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed; ii. Respondents No.2 and 3 are hereby directed to issue fresh notice to the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24956 WP No. 18502 of 2025 following address furnished by the petitioner along with mobile number; K.B.Prabhakar S/o Krishnoji Rao No.7, 5th main road, Hebbal, H.A.Farm, Bangalore-560024. M-98444 04443 iii. In the event a fresh notice is issued by respondent No.2 under Section 248(1 and 2) of the Act, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to contest the provisional order by filing detailed objections along with requisite documents; iv. Respondents No.2 and 3 thereafter shall notify the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29 CT: BHK