- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30722 WP No. 16172 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 16172 OF 2026 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: SMT SYEDA AYESHA KULSOOM D/O SYED MOHAMMED AZHER NADEEM, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/A NO. 85, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 1ST CROSS, BHEL LAYOUT, JAYANAGAR 4TH ‘T' BLOCK, BENGALURU-560041. REP BY HER GPA HOLDER- SMT. SANA GULHAWAZ BEGUM, W/O SYED MOHAMMED AZHER NADEEM, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/A NO. 85, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 1ST CROSS, BHEL LAYOUT, JAYANAGAR 4TH ‘T' BLOCK, BENGALURU-560041. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. V B SHIVAKUMAR., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER GREATEER BENGALURU AUTHORITY (ERSTWHILE BRUHAT BENGALURU Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30722 WP No. 16172 of 2026 MAHANAGARA PALIKE), HUDSON CIRCLE, N.R. ROAD, BENGALURU-560002. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BOMMANAHALLI SUBDIVISION, DEVARACHIKKANAHALLI MAIN ROAD, BILEKANAHALLI BENGALURU - 560 076. DEPARTMENT BENGALURU SOUTH CITY CORPORATION. 3. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OFFICE, BOMMANAHALLI SUBDIVISION, BEGUR MAIN ROAD, BOMMANAHALLI BENGALURU - 560 068 DEPARTMENT AT BENGALURU SOUTH CITY CORPORTATION. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MADHU J N, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (A). ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE FOLLOWING ORDERS/NOTICES (1). REGULARIZATION ORDER UNDER SECTIONS 243(3) (E) AND 244(1) OF G.B.A ACT, 2024 VIDE NO. JAN.AA/BO.VA-2//P.R/2851/2026-27 DATED 04.05.2026 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 JOINT - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30722 WP No. 16172 of 2026 COMMISSIONER, BOMMANHALLI ZONE-2, GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY, BENGALURU, WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A; (II). ORDER/NOTICE DATED 13.05.2026 VIDE NO. BEN.DA.NA.PA/SA.KA.E/BO.U.V/P.R/74/202 6-27 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY, BOMMANAHALLI ZONE, DEVARACHIKKANAHALLI MAIN ROAD, BILEKANAHALLI BENGALURU, WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B; (B). DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE PETITIONER 16.05.2026 AND 19.05.2026 (ANNEXURES- Q AND R) AND REGULARIZE THE CONSTRUCTION PUT UP BY THE PETITIONER ON THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY ACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30722 WP No. 16172 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner has put up certain constructions against which proceedings are initiated under the erstwhile Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020. The petitioner is unsuccessful in the appeal filed against the orders in such proceedings in Rev. Appeal No.89/2020 with the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal [for short, 'the Tribunal']. The petitioner has approached this Court in a writ petition in W.P. No.25912/2023 which stands disposed of by this Court on 19.09.2025 with the operative portion that reads as under. “i. The Writ Petition is hereby dismissed, reserving the liberty to the petitioner to approach the BBMP seeking regularization of certain portions of the building constructed by her in accordance with the present byelaws. ii. If the said application is made by the petitioner within a period of three (03) - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30722 WP No. 16172 of 2026 weeks from today, the respondent-BBMP will consider the same in accordance with law within a period of six (06) weeks thereafter and initiate appropriate action against the construction, if it is not in accordance with law.” The petitioner's case is that after this order, the petitioner has filed an application which is registered as Appeal No.267/2025 [Annexure-N] and during the pendency of such appeal, the petitioner is served with Order dated 04.05.2026 [Annexure-A] without extending an opportunity to show cause to justify her request for regularization. Sri V B Shivakumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Madhu J N, the learned counsel for the respondents, are heard. The fact that petitioner has filed an application in terms of the liberty reserved, though styled as 'an appeal', is not in dispute, and this Court is of the opinion that with this Court reserving liberty to the petitioner to file an application for regularization and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30722 WP No. 16172 of 2026 the petitioner having filed such application, it was incumbent upon the third respondent to verify the status of the application and then proceed to pass orders for demolition. When queried in this light, it is stated in unison that the jurisdictional Assistant Director of Town Planning [ADTP] would be the authority to consider the request for regularization in terms of the liberty granted by this Court. In the light of the afore, the following. ORDER [a] The petition is allowed in part. [b] The impugned Order dated 04.05.2026 [Annexure-A] is quashed reserving liberty to the petitioner to file an application with the jurisdictional Assistant Director of Town Planning with all the details that would justify the request for regularization including - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30722 WP No. 16172 of 2026 the Plan submitted and the details of the construction as now put up. [b] The petitioner shall file these details with the jurisdictional Assistant Director of Town Planning within five [5] weeks from today. [c] The jurisdictional Assistant Director of Town Planning shall consider the same expeditiously in accordance with law and in any event within eight [8] weeks from the date of receipt of the details as required. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE AN/-