Mr. Ummer Farooq Maved Vs the Chief Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Mr. Ummer Farooq Maved Vs the Chief Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the order of confirmation and the order of the Appellate Authority; joint inspection by BBMP officers in the petitioners' presence on 15.02.2025 at 11 a.m.; liberty to file objections to the provisional order dated 30.03.2023 within ten days therefrom, failing which the Authority may proceed to pass appropriate orders; all pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the provisional order dated 30.03.2023 was ever communicated to the petitioners so as to enable them to submit their response. +1 more

Court's answer

Service of the copy of the provisional order on the watchman indicates that the provisional order was not communicated to the petitioners, who had obtained the sanction plan.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioners did not have an opportunity to have their say to the provisional order.

Key takeaways

It would be appropriate to quash the order of confirmation as well as the order of the Appellate Authority, and permit the petitioners to file their objections to the provisional order dated 30.03.2023.ratio¶¶30
A joint inspection shall be conducted by the Officers of the BBMP in the presence of the petitioners on 15.02.2025 at 11 a.m., without further notice to the petitioners.ratio¶¶35
The petitioners are permitted to file objections to the provisional order within ten days from 15.02.2025.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (N S Sanjay Gowda J) disposed of W.P. No. 21874 of 2024 (LB-BMP) filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by two property owners (represented by their GPA holder Sri Shahrukh Imtiyaz) against BBMP officials. The petitioners challenged the order dated 18.05.2023 passed by the Chief Commissioner, BBMP in Appeal No.198/2023 (Annexure-J), which upheld an order of confirmation. The Memo filed by BBMP showed the provisional order dated 30.03.2023 was served only on one Rahul, described as watchman, and was never communicated to the petitioners, who had obtained the sanction plan. Holding that the petitioners had no opportunity to have their say on the provisional order, the court quashed both the order of confirmation and the Appellate Authority's order, directed a joint inspection by BBMP officers in the petitioners' presence on 15.02.2025 at 11 a.m. without further notice, permitted objections within ten days therefrom, and declared that failing such reply the Authority would be free to proceed. Pending interlocutory applications stood disposed of.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:5650 WP No. 21874 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 21874 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)

BETWEEN:

MR. UMMER FAROOQ MAVED S/O LATE MOHAMMED MEERA SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT NO. 57/4, VIVIANI ROAD, COOKSON ROAD, NEAR STATE BANK OF INDIA, RICHARDS TOWN, BANGALORE NORTH, BANGALORE 560 005.

SMT NAUSHEEN IMTIYAZ D/O MR MOHAMMAD EBRAHIM @ IMTIYAZ, W/O MR ABDUL AZIZ FAROOQ MAVED, R/AT NO. 408, 5^TH A CROSS HRBR 2^ND BLOCK, SERVICE ROAD, NEAR GIRIYAS, KALAYAN NAGAR, BANGALORE NORTH, BANGALORE - 560 045

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

REP BY THEIR GPA HOLDER,

SRI SHAHRUKH IMTIYAZ S/O SRI MOHAMMED IBRAHIM IMTIYAZ, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT NO. 37, ADAMS CORNER, COLES ROAD, FRAZER TOWN, BANGALORE - 560005. …PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. MANOHAR N., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BENGALRUU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:5650 WP No. 21874 of 2024

N R SQUARE BANGALORE -02.

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (TOWN PLANNING) BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGAR PALIKE, EAST ZONE 22ND FLOOR, SUBHAS CHANDRA BOSE BUILDING. M G ROAD, BENGALURU -01

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN REDDY K S., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AD 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO QUASH, THE ORDER DATED 18.05.2023 PASSED BY THE R1 (THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER, BBMP) IN APPEAL NO.198/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-J, ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners are aggrieved by an order of confirmation, which has been upheld in appeal.

It is the case of the petitioners that a provisional order was served on the watchman and was never communicated to them so as to enable them to submit their response.

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5650 WP No. 21874 of 2024

Learned counsel also submits that the Appellate Authority has not considered this aspect of the matter and it has mechanically confirmed the order of confirmation.

A perusal of the Memo that is filed by the learned counsel for the BBMP indicates that the copy of the provisional order was served on one Rahul, who has been described as watchman. It, therefore, indicates that the provisional order was not communicated to the petitioners, who had obtained the sanction plan.

It is, therefore, clear that the petitioners did not have an opportunity to have their say to the provisional order.

I am, therefore, of the view that it would be appropriate to quash the order of confirmation as well as the order of the Appellate Authority and permit the petitioners to file their objections to the provisional order dated 30.03.2023 within a period of

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:5650 WP No. 21874 of 2024

ten days from the date of the joint inspection. If the petitioners do not file their reply within ten days, the concerned Authority is at liberty to proceed to pass appropriate orders.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the authorities may be directed to conduct joint inspection, for which learned counsel for the BBMP has no objections.

In that view of the matter, the joint inspection be conducted by the Officers of the BBMP in the presence of the petitioners on 15.02.2025 at 11 a.m.

The petitioners shall not expect any notice and shall be present in the spot on 15.02.2025 at 11 a.m.

The petitioners are permitted to file objections to the provisional order within ten days from 15.02.2025.

Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:5650 WP No. 21874 of 2024

In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26