Smt. Suman v Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Smt. Suman v Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the undated confirmation order No.BBMP/VA.AA/PA.VA/PR//2025-26 and of the provisional orders dated 05.03.2022 and 29.09.2023; liberty reserved to Respondent Nos.1 to 4 to take fresh action against the petitioner and the building in accordance with law, subject to prior notification and hearing of the petitioner.

Issue for consideration

Whether the undated confirmation order and the two provisional orders, having been addressed to the petitioner's mother who no longer held any subsisting title after the gift-deed transfer, are liable to be set aside for denying the petitioner any opportunity to oppose or reply.

Court's answer

The writ petition is allowed.

Ratio / Principle

The confirmation order No.BBMP/VA.AA/PA.VA/PR//2025-26 (undated), attributed in the operative order to Respondent No.2, and the provisional orders dated 05.03.2022 and 29.09.2023 passed by Respondent No.4, are quashed.

Key takeaways

Respondent Nos.1 to 4 remain free to take fresh action against the petitioner and the building in question in accordance with law.ratio¶50
Any fresh action must be preceded by notifying the petitioner and giving her an opportunity to be heard before orders are passed.ratio¶51

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Bengaluru), single-judge bench of Justice R. Nataraj, 04-12-2025, Writ Petition No. 35814 of 2025 (LB-BMP). The petitioner acquired her mother's Rajajinagar property (PID No.4388164285) by gift deed dated 13.12.2019 and revenue/municipal records stood mutated in her name; notwithstanding this, BBMP/Greater Bengaluru Authority issued two provisional orders (05.03.2022 and 29.09.2023, through Respondent No.4) and an undated confirmation order (No.BBMP/VA.AA/PA.VA/PR//2025-26; attributed to Respondent No.4 in the prayer but to Respondent No.2 in the operative order), all addressed to the mother, so the petitioner had no opportunity to oppose or reply. Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 conceded the mis-addressal. Certiorari under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution allowed; all three orders quashed; respondents left free to take fresh action against the present owner, subject to prior notice and hearing. No precedent engaged; no monetary quantum.

NC: 2025:KHC:50930 WP No. 35814 of 2025

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 35814 OF 2025 (LB-BMP)

BETWEEN:

SMT. SUMAN V WIFE OF MADHU F AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, NO.304, 3^RD CROSS, VHBC LAYOUT BEHIND NAYARA PETROL BUNK RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 098.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. P DHANANJAYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VENKATARAVANAPAPA M, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP) NOW KNOWN AS GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY, N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002.

THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER, WEST ZONE OFFICE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE NOW KNOWN AS GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY, BHASHAM PARK, SHESHADRIPURAM BENGALURU - 560 003.

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER RAJAJINAGAR DIVISION BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE NOW KNOWN AS GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010.

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:50930 WP No. 35814 of 2025

HC-KAR

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER SRIRAMAMANDIRA SUB-DIVISION BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE NOW KNOWN AS GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 010.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING AN IMPUGNED CONFIRMATION ORDER VIDE NO.BBMP/VA.AA/PA.VA/PR/ /2025-26. UNDATED, WHICH IS HEREBY PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 HEREIN AND ETC.,

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has sought for quashing the undated

confirmation order bearing No.©©JA¦/ªÀ.C./¥À.ªÀ./¦.Dgï/ /2025-26

passed by the respondent No.2 and provisional orders bearing

No.¸À.PÁ.¤.C/²æÃgÁªÀÄ/¦.ಓ./60/21-22 dated 05.03.2022 and

No.¸À.PÁ.¤.C/²æÃgÁªÀÄ/¦.ಓ/03/23-24 dated 29.09.2023, passed by the

respondent No.4.

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:50930 WP No. 35814 of 2025

HC-KAR

(i) The petitioner contends that her mother was the owner of a property bearing No.229/A, 55^th Cross, 3^rd Block, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru-560 010, which was assigned PID No.4388164285. The petitioner's mother executed a gift deed dated 13.12.2019 bequeathing the said property in favour of the petitioner and accordingly, revenue and municipal documents were transferred to the name of the petitioner. The petitioner contends that a building plan was sanctioned by the then Town Planning Authority and a building was constructed over the property about 20 years ago.

(ii) After the property was transferred to the name of the petitioner, she addressed a letter dated 20.06.2022 to the respondent No.3 requesting that all future correspondences be addressed to her name. Nonetheless, the respondent No.3 issued a provisional order, show-cause notice and confirmation order in the name of her mother and attempted to execute the same against the building in question, which is now transferred to the petitioner. The petitioner therefore, contended that she had no opportunity to oppose and file her reply to the provisional order and the show-cause notice. Thus, she contends that the impugned confirmation order as well as the

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:50930 WP No. 35814 of 2025

HC-KAR

provisional orders being addressed to a person, who did not have any subsisting title to the property, are liable to be set aside.

The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above contentions and submitted that the impugned provisional orders as well as the confirmation order are liable to be set aside as the same are not addressed to the petitioner and the petitioner had no opportunity to oppose the same.

The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 fairly conceded that the provisional orders as well as the confirmation order in question were addressed to the mother of the petitioner and not to the petitioner, who is the present owner of the property in question. He therefore, submits that the petition be disposed off reserving liberty to the respondent Nos.1 to 4 to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.

In view of the aforesaid submission, the following

order is passed:

ORDER

(i) This petition is allowed .

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:50930 WP No. 35814 of 2025

HC-KAR

(ii) The confirmation order bearing

No.©©JA¦/ªÀ.C./¥À.ªÀ./¦.Dgï/ /2025-26 undated passed by the respondent No.2 and provisional orders bearing No.¸À.PÁ.¤.C/²æÃgÁªÀÄ//¦.ಓ/60/21-22 dated

05.03.2022 and No.¸À.PÁ.¤.C/²æÃgÁªÀÄ//¦.ಓ/03/23-24 dated 29.09.2023, passed by the respondent No.4 are quashed.

(iii) It is however, open for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 to take fresh action against the petitioner and the building in question in accordance with law.

(iv) It is needless to mention that if any action is taken, the petitioner shall be notified and shall be heard before any orders are passed.

In view of disposal of the petition, pending I.As., if

any, do not survive for consideration and the same stand disposed off.

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

PMR

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 72