- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46255 WP No. 34093 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 34093 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: SHRI PARVEZ AHMAD S/O MOHAMMED ARIF AGE ABOUT 44 YEARS OWNER OF SITE NO.232, DHARMA AVENUE, 4TH CROSS VIDYA NAGAR, BHATTARAHALLI BENGALURU-560048 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. TAHIR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER BENGALURU EAST CITY CORPORATION GBA BENGALURU-560048 EARLIER DESIGNATED AS ZONAL COMMISSIONER (MAHADEVAPURA ZONE) BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, MAHADEVAPURA, BENGALURU-560048 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER AEE OFFICE, BENGALURU EAST CITY CORPORATION GBA BENGALURU-560048 EARLIER DESIGNATED AS HOODI SUB-DIVISION, BBMP MAHADEVAPURA BENGALURU-560048 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46255 WP No. 34093 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONER'S REQUISITION DATED 10.11.2025 AT ANNEXURE-A SUBMITTED UNDER SECTION 249 OF THE BBMP ACT, 2020 / GBG ACT, 2024 FOR REGULARIZATION OF CONSTRUCTION ON SITE NOS.231 AND 232, DHARMA AVENUE, BHATTARAHALLI, MAHADEVAPURA ZONE, BENGALURU AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER In this petition, the petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondents to consider the representation dated 10.11.2025 for regularization of unauthorized construction put up on site Nos. 231 and 232, Dharma Avenue situate at Bhattarahalli, Mahadevapura Zone, Bengaluru and to direct them not to take any coercive action or demolish the construction put up by him until consideration of the representation. 2. The petitioner contends that he is the owner of the site bearing No.232 measuring 30 feet x 40 feet, 'Dharma Avenue' situate at 4th Cross, Vidya Nagar, Bhattarahalli, Bengaluru-48 (henceforth referred to as ‘the property’) and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46255 WP No. 34093 of 2025 that a building already existed on the property at the time of its purchase. It is stated that abutting the property is site No.231 measuring 30 feet x 40 feet standing in the name of one Mrs.Umme Hani Sharif and that both site Nos.231 and 232 were originally owned by members of a family and the erstwhile owners had obtained a building licence pursuant to which construction of the building was completed. He later undertook certain modification. However, the respondents issued provisional order under Section 248(1) of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 (for short, ‘the BBMP Act, 2020’) and notice dated 07.03.2024 under Section 248(2) of the BBMP Act, 2020 and confirmation order dated 17.05.2024 under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020 passed by the respondent No.2 alleging that the petitioner was putting up construction without obtaining a plan. Upon receipt of the notice, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 10.11.2025 to the respondents to regularize the building constructed on the property. He was thereafter informed by the respondents that the property of the petitioner was entered in the ‘B’ register and therefore, no plan would be sanctioned. The petitioner believing the representation made to him that - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46255 WP No. 34093 of 2025 the State Government was proposing to regularize the ‘B’ khata properties continued the construction. Subsequently, the respondent No.1 issued notice dated 21.08.2025 to the petitioner calling upon him to participate in the enquiry scheduled on 04.09.2025 at 3 p.m. and produce documents in support of his case. The petitioner is, therefore, before this Court seeking for the aforementioned directions. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above contentions and prayed that the respondents be directed to consider the representation of the petitioner and regularize the construction already put up by him on the property. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contended that an order under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020 is already passed by the respondent No.2 on 17.05.2024 and therefore, unless the petitioner challenges the said order, he is not entitled for any relief at the hands of this Court. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46255 WP No. 34093 of 2025 6. The petitioner has enclosed a copy of the order under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020 passed by the respondent No.2 on 17.05.2024. It appears that the petitioner has not challenged the said order before the Appellate Authority. However, the petitioner continued to construct the building on the property. 7. In view of the aforesaid, no direction can be issued to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner. If the petitioner is interested, he may protect his construction on the property by challenging the order dated 17.05.2024 passed under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020, by the respondent No.2. The petitioner is therefore, granted a month’s time to file an appeal before the Chief Commissioner of the Greater Bengaluru Authority as provided under Section 250 of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024. Until filing of such appeal, the respondents are directed not to demolish or damage the construction put up by the petitioner on the property. However, the petitioner shall not put up any further construction on the property until the appeal is disposed off. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46255 WP No. 34093 of 2025 8. It is made clear that this interim protection is only granted to enable the petitioner to file the appeal and shall not be extended beyond 30 days from now. It is open for the petitioner to seek interim reliefs before the Appellate Authority in accordance with law. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SMA/List No.: 3 Sl No.: 2