Sri a Suresh Babu Vs the Chief Commissioner and — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri a Suresh Babu Vs the Chief Commissioner and — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the provisional order (05.08.2023), confirmation order (16.08.2024) and appellate order (17.08.2024); Authorities directed to reconsider the entire matter afresh - petitioners to file objections within four weeks treating the Confirmatory Order as a show cause notice, and the concerned Authority to pass a fresh order after hearing the petitioners in accordance with law.

Issue for consideration

Whether the notices issued prior to the confirmatory order were served on the petitioners, or whether they were served only on the Developer, so that the impugned orders were passed without hearing the petitioners. +1 more

Court's answer

On a perusal of the impugned orders, the Court found no indication that the notice was served on the petitioners, in whose name the khata had been transferred in the year 2020.

Ratio / Principle

The impugned orders were quashed and the Authorities directed to reconsider the entire matter afresh.

Key takeaways

Directions issued: the petitioners shall treat the impugned Confirmatory Order as a show cause notice and file their objections within four weeks; on such objections being filed, the concerned Authority shall pass an order after hearing the petitioners in accordance with law.ratio¶30
The writ petition was allowed.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by two individuals challenging a BBMP confirmation order dated 16.08.2024 (No. ASST. D.T.P(S)/CO/85/2023024, Annexure-Q), which had been upheld in Appeal No.149/2023 by order dated 17.08.2024 (Annexure-S), along with the antecedent provisional order dated 05.08.2023 (Annexure-P). The petitioners contended that the notices preceding the confirmatory order were not served on them but on the Developer. The Court, perusing the impugned orders, found no indication that notice was served on the petitioners, in whose name the khata had been transferred in 2020. Holding the orders to have been passed without hearing the petitioners, the Court quashed the impugned orders and directed the Authorities to reconsider the entire matter afresh: the petitioners were permitted to treat the impugned Confirmatory Order as a show cause notice and file objections within four weeks, upon which the concerned Authority was to pass a fresh order after hearing them in accordance with law. Writ petition allowed. (Single Judge: N S Sanjay Gowda, J.; oral order dated 06.01.2025.)

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:3 WP No. 28495 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 28495 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)

BETWEEN:

SRI A SURESH BABU AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI.A.N.ASWATH NARAYANA SETTY, RESIDING AT NO.12, JEWELLERS STREET, COMMERCIAL STREET CROSS, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU G.P.O., BENGALURU 560 001.

SRI. I.B. MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O. LATE SRI. I.M. BHAKTHAVASALA, RESIDING AT NO.28, VIJAYALAKSHMI NIVAS, EAST CIRCLE ROAD, NEAR VB BAKERY, V.V. PURAM, BENGALURU 560 004.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. H V DEVARAJU., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: High Court of Karnataka

THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER AND AND THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 002.

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH) AND ZONAL COMMISSIONER (SOUTH), BBMP, COMMISSIONER OFFICE COMMERCIAL COMPLEX BUILDING, 9^TH CROSS ROAD, 9^TH MAIN ROAD, 2HD BLOCK, JAYANAGARA, BENGALURU 560 011.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. K.S. MALLIKARJUNA., ADVOCATE)

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:3 WP No. 28495 of 2024

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 ANS 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO CALL FOR CONNECTED RECORDS RELATING TO THE PROVISIONAL ORDER, DATED: 05.08.2023 BEARING NO. ASST. D.T.P.(S)/PO/85/2023-24 AT ANNEXURE-P AND CONFIRMATION ORDER, DATED: 16.08.2024 BEARING NO. ASST. D.T.P(S)/CO/85/2023024 AT ANNEXURE-Q AND ORDER, DATED:17.08.2024 PASSED IN APPEAL NO.149/2023 AT ANNEXURE-S ON THE FILE OF THE R-1 AND 2, 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 challenging an order of confirmation

which has in turn been up-held in an appeal.

It is the contention of the petitioners that the notices prior to issuance of the confirmatory order were not served on the petitioners and it appears that the notices were served on the Developer. It is therefore contended that the order impugned is an order which has been passed without hearing the petitioners.

A perusal of the impugned orders does not indicate that the notice was served on the petitioners in whose name the khata was transferred in the year 2020.

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:3 WP No. 28495 of 2024

In that view of the matter, it would be appropriate to quash the impugned orders and direct the Authorities to reconsider the entire matter afresh. The petitioners shall consider the impugned Confirmatory Order as a show cause notice and file their objections within a period of four weeks. On such objections being filed, the concerned Authority shall pass an order after hearing the petitioners in accordance with law.

This writ petition is accordingly allowed .

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

GSR

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4