- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47773 WP No. 57584 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 57584 OF 2018 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: SRI. G. GANGADHARA ESHWAR RAO S/O LATE G. MUTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 69/3, 5TH MAIN ROAD, MATHIKERE EXTENSION, MATHIKERE BENGALURU-560 054 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAGARAJ KRUPAKAR HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SUBRAMANYA R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R. SQUARE BENGALURU-560 002, REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MATHIKERE SUB DIVISION, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BENGALURU-560 054 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED CONFIRMATION ORDER EVEN DATED 05.12.2018 BEARING NO.SA. KAA. NI. AA (M.K)/C.O/04/18-19 [PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A] AND BEARING NO. SA. KAA. NI. AA (M.K)/C.O/04/18- 19 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT [PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE- B]. Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47773 WP No. 57584 of 2018 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged the confirmation order bearing No.¸À.PÁ.¤.C(JA.PÉ)¹.N/04/2018-19 dated 05.12.2018 passed by respondent No.2 under Section 321(3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (henceforth referred to as 'Act, 1976'). 2. (i) The petitioner being the owner of a property bearing Municipal No.69 (present Municipal No.69/3), 5th main road, Mathikere extension, BBMP Ward No.4, Mathikere, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru, measuring 600 sq. ft., obtained a plan and licence from the respondent No.1 and constructed a building comprising of ground and first floor. He contended that the respondent No.2 without issuing a provisional order and show-cause notice as provided under Sections 321(1) and 321(2) of the Act, 1976, issued a confirmation order under Section 321(3) of the Act, 1976. By the said order, the petitioner was directed to pull down construction, which was offending the sanctioned plan. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47773 WP No. 57584 of 2018 (ii) The petitioner is therefore, before this Court challenging the confirmation order passed under Section 321(3) of the Act, 1976. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not served with the mandatory notice under Sections 321(1) and 321(2) of the Act, 1976 and therefore, the writ petition is maintainable as the impugned order is passed without following due process of law and without following the principles of natural justice. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has a remedy of an appeal under Section 443-A of the Act, 1976. However, instead of availing the appeal remedy, the petitioner has approached this Court. He contends that the remedy of an appeal is also provided now before the Chief Commissioner and therefore, prayed that the petitioner may be relegated before the appellate authority. 5. It appears from the writ petition that following the order passed under Section 321(3) of the Act, 1976, the respondent No.1 has already issued an order under Section 462 of the Act, 1976 to demolish the construction. The petitioner - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47773 WP No. 57584 of 2018 was therefore, bound to file an appeal as provided under Section 443-A of the Act, 1976. However, in view of the repeal of Act, 1976 in so far as it is applicable to Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike area and promulgation of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 and Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024, the petitioner is entitled to appeal before the Chief Commissioner and raise all contentions in the appeal including the contentions raised in this writ petition. 6. In that view of the matter, the following order is passed: ORDER (i) This writ petition stands disposed off directing the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of appeal before the Chief Commissioner. (ii) The petitioner is granted thirty days' time from today to file an appeal. Until then, the respondents shall not take any precipitative action against the construction put up by the petitioner. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47773 WP No. 57584 of 2018 (iii) It is made clear that this order is only for a period of thirty days from today and not beyond that period. (iv) It is open for the petitioner to seek interim relief before the Chief Commissioner in the appeal that may be filed. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58