- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33674 WP No. 17451 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 17451 OF 2026 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: SHRI. VENKOBA RAO SHIVARAM, S/O SAWASERE CHINNAPPA VENKOBA RAO, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.73, SUNKALPET MAIN ROAD, ULSOOR GATE, BANGALORE NORTH, BANGALORE CITY, BANGALORE KARNATAKA-560002. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NATARAJ D.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER GBA OFFICE AT N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING ZONE-2 Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33674 WP No. 17451 of 2026 BENGALURU CENTRAL CITY CORPORATION GBA, BENGALURU - 560 002. 3. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING BENGALURU CENTRAL CITY CORPORATION GBA, BENGALURU - 560 002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NIRMAL MATHEW.,ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI THEREBY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED QUASHING DEMAND THE NOTICE DATED 12/05/2026 BEARING NO. 20/25-26 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 ANNEXURE-F; THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33674 WP No. 17451 of 2026 ORAL ORDER The petitioner, a septuagenarian, who asserts ownership of property bearing No.44, PID No.77-12- 44 situated in 7th Cross, S.R.Nagar, Sri B.T.Muniyappa Road, Bengaluru [for short, ‘the subject property], is aggrieved by the second respondent’s order dated 12.05.2026 [Annexure-F]. The second respondent’s order is under Section 243 (3)(e) of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024 [for short, ‘the GBG Act’] calling upon the petitioner to remove deviations in the construction. This order is after conclusion of the proceedings under Section 243(3)(d) of the GBG Act. However, Sri Nataraj D., the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that this Court must intervene because the petitioner is not served with notice or extended a due opportunity. Sri Nirmal Mathew, a learned counsel whose appearance for the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33674 WP No. 17451 of 2026 respondents is accepted, submits that the petitioner contends that the second respondent's impugned order is without jurisdiction and for extraneous consideration but the petitioner should avail remedy under Section 250 of the GBG Act for redressal of the grievance on these grounds. The question for consideration in these circumstances will be whether this Court must intervene when the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy and in the circumstances this Court opines that the petitioner must be relegated to such an alternative remedy leaving open all questions to be considered in the appeal if the petitioner avails such remedy. As regards the protection that must be against demolition with the petitioner having to avail alternative remedy, this Court is of the view that the respondents must defer precipitation against construction under the impugned order for a period - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33674 WP No. 17451 of 2026 of four [4] weeks from today. It would be needless to observe that during these four weeks the petitioner shall not put up any construction or occupy the premises and if there is any violation of this condition, it shall be open to the second respondent to ensure that the premises is seized. The petition stands disposed of in the afore terms. SD/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SA Ct:sr