Disposed

Sri E Bhaskar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Jul 2025WP/19897/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A property owner who had constructed with an approved plan challenged a BBMP order under Sections 248(3) and 356(1) of the BBMP Act. The Court relegated him to appeal under Section 253, granting four weeks, and directed no coercive action meanwhile.

What did the court decide?

Four weeks granted to file appeal under Section 253; respondents directed not to take coercive action till then.

Sri E Bhaskar Vs State of Karnataka — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:24593 WP No. 19897 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 19897 OF 2025 (LB-BMP)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. E. BHASKAR S/O. MR. VEERAIAH .E AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 629 FLAT NO. 401, LUCKY HOME KONDURU NAGARJUNA RAJU AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O. SRI. KONDURU PAPA RAJU RESIDING AT NO. 48/155 KOTHAPETA, RAYACHOTY, CUDDAPAH ANDHRA PRADESH-516 269.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. KARTHIK .V, ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001.

¶15

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER J.C. ROAD, HUDSON CIRCLE BENGALURU-560 001.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:24593 WP No. 19897 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER BBMP, MAHADEVAPUR RANGE BENGALURU.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. BOPANNA .B, AGA FOR R1; SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶22

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ORDERS DATED 23.06.2025 IN NOS. BBMP/SA.KA.AA/DO.U.VI/PR/11/2025-26 ISSUED BY THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, BBMP, MAHADEVAPUR BENGALURU-3^RD RESPONDENT, COPIES OF WHICH ARE PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F RESPECTIVELY.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Petitioner, who is owner of the schedule property and has undertaken construction after having secured building licence and approved plan, is aggrieved by the order passed by third respondent under Section 248(3) and 356(1) of BBMP Act, 2020(for short "the Act").

¶27

Learned counsel appearing for BBMP would point out that this order is appealable under Section 253 of the Act.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:24593 WP No. 19897 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Petitioner's primary contention is that provisional

¶32

order under 248(1) of the Act is passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice.

¶33

Be that as it may, since petitioner has an efficacious remedy of an appeal, this Court deems it fit to relegate petitioner to avail the remedy of an appeal under Section 253 of the Act. Four weeks time is granted to file an appeal.

¶34

Till such time, the third respondent is hereby

¶35

directed not to take any coercive action.

¶36

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶37

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶38

ALB List No.: 3 Sl No.: 3

Sri E Bhaskar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri E Bhaskar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Shamalamma B, Vs the Commissioner

Smt Muniyamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. D J Jagadeesha Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Chef Talk Food and Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs the Commissioner

Sri Channappa B M Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Vimaladevi Vs State of Karnataka