- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50905 WP No. 6691 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 6691 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: SATYA ACHAYYA D/O K.C. ACHAYYA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, R/AT NO.19, 6TH CROSS, NANDI DURGA ROAD EXTENSION, JAYAMAHAL, WARD NO-63 BENGALURU-560066 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HARISH B. NARASAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. AMITH NAYAK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP) N.R SQUARE, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560002 2. ZONAL COMMISSIONER (EAST) BBMP EAST ZONE, 10TH FLOOR, PUBLIC UTILITY BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560001 3. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING (ADTP) BBMP EAST ZONE, 10TH FLOOR, PUBLIC UTILITY BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560001 4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (VASANTNAGAR SUB-DIVISION) BBMP EAST ZONE, Digitally signed by SACHIN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50905 WP No. 6691 of 2025 3RD CROSS, BALLAPPA GARDENS, N.K.PALYA, BENGALURU-560051 5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (AEE) BBMP VASANTH NAGAR SUB-DIVISION 3RD CROSS, BALLAPPA GARDENS, N.K.PALYA, BENGALURU - 560051 6. ASSISTANT ENGINEER (AE) WARD 63 3RD CROSS, BALLAPPA GARDENS, N.K.PALYA, BENGALURU - 560051 7. MR. MAHBOOB SHARIFF SAFEER AGE: MAJOR S/O: NOT KNOWN SITE NO. 1, 6TH CROSS, NANDI DURGA ROAD EXTENSION, JAYAMAHAL, WARD NO.63, BENGALURU-560046 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SUMANGALA GURUDEV GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 6; SRI. NARAYANA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. P.N.RAJESWARA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.7) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY FROM THE FILE OF THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 6 AND ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 6 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 26.11.2024 AT - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50905 WP No. 6691 of 2025 ANNEXURE-A TO THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND EXPEDITIOUSLY AND ETC. 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 sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Nos.1 to 6 to consider her representation dated 26.11.2024 and demolish the unauthorized construction put up by the respondent No.7 in the petition schedule property. 2. The petitioner claims that the respondent No.7 being a owner of a property on the same street where she is living, has put up unauthorized construction of a residential building. She contends that despite repeated emails to the concerned authorities to stop the on-going illegal construction, respondent Nos.1 to 6 did not take action. Later, it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that a notice dated 27.11.2024 under Section 313 of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50905 WP No. 6691 of 2025 Act, 2020 (for short, 'the BBMP Act') was issued by the respondent No.5 to the respondent No.7 summoning some documents. The said notice was served on the respondent No.7 on 10.12.2024. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 issued a provisional order dated 03.01.2025 under Section 248(1) of the BBMP Act and issued a notice dated 03.01.2025 under Section 248(2) of the BBMP Act to the respondent No.7. This was followed by a confirmation order dated 20.01.2025 under Section 248(3) read with Section 356(1) of the BBMP Act passed by the respondent No.2 directing the respondent No.7 to demolish the unauthorized construction put up by him in the petition schedule property, the details of which were mentioned therein. The petitioner contends that even after 10 months, the respondent Nos.1 to 6 have not taken any action to demolish the unauthorized construction. The petitioner is, therefore, before this Court seeking for a direction to the respondent Nos.1 to 6 to consider her representation dated 26.11.2024 submitted to the Assistant Executive Engineer, BBMP, Shivajinagar, Bengaluru, and demolish the unauthorized construction put up by the respondent No.7 over the petition schedule property. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50905 WP No. 6691 of 2025 3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above contentions and submitted that the respondent Nos.1 to 6 owe a duty to ensure compliance of the order under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act. He contends that since the respondent Nos.1 to 6 have not taken any action against the respondent No.7, it gives an impression that the respondent Nos.1 to 6 are hand in glove with the respondent No.7. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.7 has today filed a memo dated 04.09.2025 and enclosed therewith a copy of Appeal memo in Appeal No.99/2025 filed by the respondent No.7 against the provisional order dated 03.01.2025 passed by the respondent No.2 under Section 248(1) of the BBMP Act and the notice dated 03.01.2025 issued by the respondent No.2 under Section 248(2) of the BBMP Act and the order dated 20.01.2025 passed by the respondent No.2 under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, before the Chief Commissioner, BBMP, Bengaluru. Therefore, he contends that until the said appeal is disposed off, no direction can be issued to the respondent Nos.1 to 6 to implement the order dated 20.01.2025 passed by the respondent No.2 under Section 248(3) read with Section 356(1) of the BBMP Act. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50905 WP No. 6691 of 2025 5. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 6 does not dispute the fact that respondent No.7 has filed an appeal before the Chief Commissioner, BBMP, Bengaluru. 6. In view of the aforesaid, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for respondent No.7, respondent Nos.1 to 6 cannot be directed to take any action as the matter is now seized before the Appellate Authority under Section 253 of the BBMP Act. In that view of the matter, no direction can be issued to respondent Nos.1 to 6 to implement the order dated 20.01.2025 passed by the respondent No.2 under Section 248(3) read with Section 356(1) of the BBMP Act. However, since the respondent No.7 claims that an appeal is filed before the Appellate Authority, it is appropriate to direct the Appellate Authority, namely, the Chief Commissioner, Greater Bengaluru Authority, to dispose off the Appeal No.99/2025 as early as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SMA/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60