Sri Prem S Sagar Vs the Commissioner

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:46256 WP No. 34078 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 34078 OF 2025 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI PREM S SAGAR S/O S.P. SAGAR AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS OWNER OF SITE NOS.251 AND 252 A CROSS, VIDYA NAGAR BHATTARAHALLI WARD NO.99 MAHADEVAPURA ZONE BENGALURU-560048

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. TAHIR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER BENGALURU EAST CITY CORPORATION GBA BENGALURU - 560048 EARLIER DESIGNATED AS ZONAL COMMISSIONER (MAHADEVAPURA ZONE) BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE MAHADEVAPURA, BENGALURU-560048

¶14

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER AAE OFFICE BENGALURU EAST CITY CORPORATION GBA BENGALURU-560048 EARLIER DESIGNATED AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HODI SUB-DIVISION, BBMP, MAHADEVAPURA, BENGALURU-560048

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2)

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:46256 WP No. 34078 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONER'S REQUISITION DATED 10.11.2025 AT ANNEXURE-A SUBMITTED UNDER SECTION 249 OF THE BBMP ACT, 2020 / GBG ACT, 2024 FOR REGULARIZATION OF CONSTRUCTION ON SITES NOS. 251 AND 252 A CROSS VIDYA NAGAR BHATTARAHALLI, MAHADEVAPURA ZONE, BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

In this petition, the petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondents to consider the representation dated 10.11.2025 for regularization of unauthorized construction put up on site Nos.251 and 252 situate at A cross, Vidya Nagar, Bhattarahalli, Mahadevapura Zone, Bengaluru (henceforth referred to as ‘the property’) and to direct them not to take any coercive action or demolish the construction put up by him until such representation is considered by the respondents.

¶24

The petitioner contends that he is the owner of the property and that a building already existed on the property at

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:46256 WP No. 34078 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

the time of its purchase. He later undertook certain modifications. However, the respondents issued provisional order under Section 248(1) of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 (for short, ‘the BBMP Act, 2020’) and notice dated 07.03.2024 under Section 248(2) of the BBMP Act, 2020 and confirmation order dated 17.05.2024 under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020 passed by the respondent No.2 alleging that the petitioner was putting up construction without obtaining a plan. He was thereafter informed by the respondents that the property of the petitioner was entered in the ‘B’ register and therefore, no plan would be sanctioned. The petitioner believing the representation made to him that the State Government was proposing to regularize the ‘B’ khata properties continued the construction. Subsequently, the respondent No.1 issued notice dated 21.08.2025 to the petitioner calling upon him to participate in the enquiry scheduled on 04.09.2025 at 3 p.m. and produce documents in support of his case. However, the respondents demolished a portion of the construction put up by the petitioner on the property on 07.11.2025. The petitioner is,

¶28

4 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:46256 WP No. 34078 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

therefore, before this Court seeking for the aforementioned directions.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above contentions and prayed that the respondents be directed to consider the representation of the petitioner and regularize the construction already put up by him on the property.

¶33

Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contended that an order under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020 is already passed by the respondent No.2 on 17.05.2024 and therefore, unless the petitioner challenges the said order, he is not entitled for any relief at the hands of this Court.

¶34

I have considered the submissions of the learned

¶35

counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶36

The petitioner has enclosed with the petition a copy of the order under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020 passed by the respondent No.2 on 17.05.2024. It appears that the petitioner has not challenged the said order before the

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:46256 WP No. 34078 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Appellate Authority. However, the petitioner continued to construct the building on the property and therefore, the respondents were constrained to take action to demolish the construction put up by the petitioner.

¶40

In view of the aforesaid, no direction can be issued to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner. If the petitioner is interested, he may protect his construction on the property by challenging the order dated 17.05.2024 passed by the respondent No.2 under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020. The petitioner is therefore, granted a month’s time to file an appeal before the Chief Commissioner of the Greater Bengaluru Authority as provided under Section 250 of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024. Until filing of such appeal, the respondents are directed not to demolish or damage the construction put up by the petitioner on the property. However, the petitioner shall not put up any further construction on the property until such appeal is disposed off.

¶41

It is made clear that this interim protection is

¶42

granted only to enable the petitioner to file the appeal.

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:46256 WP No. 34078 of 2025

¶44

6 -

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Therefore, if the petitioner fails to file the appeal within 30 days from now, the protection granted shall automatically stand terminated. It is open for the Appellate Authority to consider granting stay of the order passed by the respondent No.2 under Section 248(3) of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶49

SMA

¶50

List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1

Sri Prem S Sagar v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Prem S Sagar v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Shashiyamma @ Shasikala Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Tanveer Pasha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. T. Venkataramu @ T. v. Ramu Vs Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Smt. Lalita Vs the Commissioner

Sri S B Nanjundappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Muniraju Vs the State of Karnataka