Sri Dilip G Jain, Vs the Chief Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri Dilip G Jain, Vs the Chief Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to file an appeal under Section 250 of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024 before the Chief Commissioner/appropriate Authority against the Section 248(3) confirmation order, within thirty days; interim directions that respondents refrain from precipitative action against the petitioner or his building and not disconnect the electricity connection until the appeal is filed; petitioner may seek further interim reliefs before the appellate Authority.

Issue for consideration

Whether a petitioner who has received a final/confirmation order under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020 can challenge that order before the High Court instead of preferring the statutory appeal under Section 250 of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024. +1 more

Court's answer

A recipient of a final/confirmation order under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020 is bound to challenge it by preferring an appeal before the appropriate Authority and cannot challenge the confirmation order before this Court.

Ratio / Principle

Without adjudicating the contested question whether the petitioner was served with the confirmation order, the Court granted him an opportunity to file an appeal before the appropriate Authority.

Key takeaways

The petition was disposed of, permitting the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 250 of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024 before the appropriate Authority/Chief Commissioner against the order passed under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020.ratio¶45
The appeal shall be filed within a period of thirty days from the date of the order.ratio¶45
Until the appeal is filed within the stated time, the respondents are directed not to take any precipitative action against the petitioner or his building/petition schedule property; the petitioner remains free to seek interim reliefs before the appropriate Authority in the appeal.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by the owner of a Chamarajpet property challenging, before the High Court, a provisional order under S. 248(1), notice under S. 248(2) and a confirmation order under S. 248(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020 passed by the Zonal Commissioner, Central Zone (Respondent No. 2), vide Annexure A to C (¶20). The petitioner claimed construction strictly per sanctioned plan, that the confirmation order dated 27.06.2025 reached him only on 27.11.2025 when officials visited the fully occupied building, served the antedated order and directed removal of movables ahead of intended demolition (¶¶30, 33); respondent counsel countered that the order had been served on 27.06.2025 and the petitioner had slept over his rights (¶39). Counsel sought a stay to enable an appeal under S. 250 of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024 (¶37). The Court expressly declined to adjudicate the service question, holding that a holder of a S. 248(3) confirmation order must pursue the statutory appellate route and cannot challenge it before the High Court (¶44). The petition was disposed permitting an appeal within thirty days, with interim directions barring precipitative action against the petitioner/building and any disconnection of electricity until the appeal is filed, and leaving interim reliefs to the appellate Authority (¶¶45, 49).

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Provisional order (No. BBMP/VA. AA/PA. VA VA/PR/69/24-25, dated 27.03.2025), notice (No. BBMP/VA. AA/PA. VA VA/PR/69/24-25, dated 27.03.2025) and confirmatory order (No. BBMP/VA. AA/PA. VA VA/PR/69/25-26, dated 27.06.2025, but served on 27.11.2025), all passed/issued by Respondent No. 2, vide Annexure A to C.¶20
Respondent No.2 - Zonal Commissioner, Central Zone, BBMP (now renamed as GBA) · 27.03.2025 (provisional order and notice); 27.06.2025 (confirmation order, served 27.11.2025)
Prior proceeding
Petitioner contends he is owner of the property bearing khata No.11, PID No.46-5-11, old No.5, 3rd Main Road, Chamarajpet, Ward No.46, Bengaluru-560 018.¶27
Prior proceeding
Petitioner obtained a plan and licence to construct stilt, ground, first, second and third floors; claims construction accords with the sanctioned plan without deviations.¶30
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.2 issued a provisional order under Section 248(1) of the BBMP Act, 2020.¶30
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.2 issued a notice under Section 248(2) of the BBMP Act, 2020.¶30
Prior proceeding
Petitioner met officials of the Greater Bengaluru Authority, submitted a reply claiming no violation of the sanctioned plan, and requested a spot inspection and measurement of the building in his presence.¶30
Prior proceeding
Following communication by respondents to BESCOM about the provisional order, Superintending Engineer (Ele.), BESCOM, West Circle wrote to petitioner on 24.09.2025 (continuing letter of 14.02.2025) asking him to obtain an Occupancy Certificate for release of power connection.¶30
Prior proceeding
Facing threat of electricity disconnection, petitioner filed W.P. No.33199/2025; this Court by order dated 05.11.2025 directed respondent Nos.5 and 6 therein not to disconnect electricity supply to his schedule property or take further action pursuant to the notice dated 24.09.2025, till next hearing.¶33
Prior proceeding
Officials of respondent No.3 visited the petitioner's building on 27.11.2025 and served a confirmation order dated 27.06.2025, characterized by the petitioner as antedated; petitioner states the final/confirmation order had not earlier been passed/served on him.¶33
Prior proceeding
During the visit petitioner was directed to remove the movables from the building as the officials intended to demolish the building.¶33
Prior proceeding
Petitioner states the building is now fully constructed and people are residing therein.¶33