- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23657 WP No. 13784 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.13784 OF 2026 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. SRI B SRINIVAS S/O. BYRAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NO.23,/12, 9TH A CROSS, BEHIND CHOWDESHAWARI SCHOOL, BSK 3D STAGE, ITAMADU, BENGALURU SOUTH - 560 085. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIVEK S. REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. K.N. SUBBAREDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001, URBAN DEVELOPMENT. 2. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER, GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY, N.R. SQUARE, Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23657 WP No. 13784 of 2026 BANGALORE-560 002. 3. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY, BANGALORE EAST CITY CORPORATION, BANGALORE EAST ZONE-2, K.R. PURAM, BENGALURU-560 036. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BOPANNA BELLIAPPA, AGA., FOR R.1; SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R.2 AND R.3.) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO.JAM.A/MA.PA/P.R/38/25-26 VIDE ANNEXURE-A DATED 05.03.2026 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3, ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23657 WP No. 13784 of 2026 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner has challenged the confirmation order passed by the Greater Bengaluru Authority under Sections 243(3)(e) and 244(1) of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024 (for short 'the Act'). 2. It is seen that the petitioner is having an alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 250 of the Act. 3. However, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Appellate Authority is not holding regular sittings, and normally, appeals are taken up only once in a week, and there is an immediate threat of demolition and if some relief is granted, the petitioner would approach the Appellate Authority in accordance with law. 4. Taking into consideration that the matter pertains to demolition of a building, and that the petitioner is having an alternative and efficacious remedy, under the given peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that if an order granting protection to the petitioner for a period of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23657 WP No. 13784 of 2026 eight weeks is passed that would serve the ends of justice. Hence the following:- ORDER i. The writ petition is dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail the appellate remedy in the manner known to law. However, the respondents are directed not to precipitate the matter against the petitioner for a period of eight weeks from today. In the meanwhile, the petitioner shall not put up any additional construction on the property concerned. ii. The Appellate Authority shall dispose of the appeal in the manner known to law by conducting a fresh survey of the building, if required. It shall not be influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove while taking a decision and shall decide the matter independently based on the pleadings and the evidence before it. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23657 WP No. 13784 of 2026 iii. If the petitioner has sought for a modified sanction plan/fresh plan, the same shall be considered by the authorities in the manner known to law. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE VMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6