Disposed¶41

Smt Hemalatha v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Jul 2025WP/17214/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

BBMP Act 2020; Section 248(3) confirmation order; Section 253 appeal; writ maintainability; efficacious alternative remedy; interim protection continuation; demolition order; immovable residential property; Appellate Authority inaction; interlocutory application; Appeal No.126/2025; Zonal Commissioner BBMP; Articles 226 and 227; Karnataka High Court; Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum; writ petition disposed

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; interim order dated 16.06.2025 continued in force until the Appellate Authority considers and passes appropriate orders on the interlocutory application/interim prayer filed in Appeal No.126/2025, in accordance with law. ¶41

Smt Hemalatha Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition is maintainable notwithstanding the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy by way of an appeal under Section 253 of the BBMP Act, 2020 before the Appellate Authority. +1 more

¶34

Court's answer

The writ petition is not maintainable in view of the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy, namely the appeal under Section 253 of the BBMP Act, 2020 already filed before the Appellate Authority.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

Despite non-maintainability, the Court took note that the Appellate Authority had not considered the interlocutory application seeking interim relief despite the appeal having been filed on 27.05.2025, and was inclined to grant limited protection vide interim order dated 16.06.2025.

¶34

Key takeaways

Because the appeal concerns a demolition order involving an immovable residential property and the petitioners have not yet been heard on their interim application, the Appellate Authority's inaction in considering the interlocutory application necessitates continuation of interim protection until that application is disposed of in accordance with law.ratio¶38
The interim order granted by this Court on 16.06.2025 shall remain in force and continue to operate until the Appellate Authority considers and passes appropriate orders on the interlocutory application/interim prayer filed in Appeal No.126/2025, in accordance with law.ratio¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Sachin Shankar Magadum, J.), W.P. No. 17214 of 2025 (LB-BMP), decided 15 July 2025: Petitioners assailed a Confirmation Order dated 25.04.2025 passed by respondent No.2 (Zonal Commissioner, BBMP Bangalore South Zone) under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020. The Court held the writ petition not maintainable in view of the efficacious alternative remedy of an appeal under Section 253 of the BBMP Act, 2020 (Appeal No.126/2025, filed 27.05.2025, pending before the Appellate Authority). However, noting that the Appellate Authority had not considered the interlocutory application seeking interim relief, that the appeal pertained to a demolition order involving an immovable residential property, and that the petitioners had not yet been heard on their interim application, the Court continued the interim protection granted on 16.06.2025. Writ petition disposed of with the interim order to remain in force until the Appellate Authority disposes of the interlocutory application in accordance with law.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:26194 WP No. 17214 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.17214 OF 2025 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. HEMALATHA W/O B N LOKESH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT NO.58 (OLD NO.164/B) RESERVOIR STREET BASAVANAGUDI BANGALORE WARD NO.188 (167)

¶9

BANGALORE- 560004

¶10

B N LOKESH

¶11

S/O LATE B H NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT NO.58 (OLD NO.164/B) RESERVOIR STREET BASAVANAGUDI

¶12

Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

BANGALORE WARD NO.188 (167) BANGALORE- 560004

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI.SANDEEP LAHIRI, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA VIDHANA VEEDHI

¶18

BANGALORE- 560001

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:26194 WP No. 17214 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BANGALORE SOUTH ZONE 2^ND FLOOR BBMP COMMERCIAL BUILDING 9^TH CROSS ROAD 2^ND BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE- 560011

¶23

BRUHAT BANGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER'S BANASHANKARI TEMPLE SUB-DIVISION YEDIYUR COMMERCIAL COMPLEX S KARIYAPPA ROAD, BBMP BANGALORE- 560082

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI.H.K.KENCHEGOWDA, AGA FOR R.1; SRI.PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R.2 AND R.3)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 25.04.2025 PASSED BY THE R2 IN CASE NO.VA. AA (DA) STHA.AA/PR/18/2025-26 UNDER SECTION 248(3) AND 356(1) OF THE BBMP ACT, 2020 (ANNEXURE -A) AND ETC.

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

The petitioners are assailing the Confirmation Order

¶30

dated 25.04.2025 passed by respondent No.2 under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020 as per Annexure -A.

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:26194 WP No. 17214 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3, and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1.

¶34

3. The records clearly indicate that the petitioners have already challenged the Confirmation Order passed under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020 before the Appellate Authority by filing an appeal under Section 253 of the BBMP Act, 2020. Although this writ petition is not maintainable in view of the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy, this Court, taking note of the fact that the Appellate Authority has not considered the interlocutory application seeking interim relief despite the appeal having been filed on 27.05.2025, was inclined to grant limited protection vide interim order dated 16.06.2025.

¶35

4. Considering that the appeal in Appeal No.126/2025 pertains to a demolition order involving an immovable residential property, and that the petitioners,

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:26194 WP No. 17214 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

who are stated to have constructed a residential house, have not yet been granted an opportunity of hearing on their interim application, this Court is of the view that the interim protection granted earlier deserves to be continued. The inaction on the part of the Appellate Authority in considering the interlocutory application till date necessitates continuation of interim protection until the said application is disposed of in accordance with law.

¶39

5. In light of the above, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

(i ) The writ petition stands disposed of.

¶42

(ii) The interim order granted by this

¶43

Court on 16.06.2025 shall remain in force

¶44

and shall continue to operate until the Appellate Authority considers and passes appropriate orders on the interlocutory