Sri Ashok Kumar S Vs State of Karnataka

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:52187 WP No. 37267 of 2025

¶2

1 -

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 37267 OF 2025 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. ASHOK KUMAR S., S/O LATE SHIVALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO.1, 6^TH MAIN, OPP. SWAYAM PRABHA KALYANA MANTAPA, KAMAKSHIPALYA BANGALORE - 560079 REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER SRI. PAWAN SHYAM S/O SRI ASHOK KUMAR S., AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT NO.1, 6^TH MAIN, OPP. SWAYAM PRABHA KALYANA MANTAPA, MEENAKSHI NAGAR, KAMAKSHIPALYA BANGALORE - 560079

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

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

¶11

(BY SRI. ANOOP HARANAHALLI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560001 REPRESENTED. BY SECRETARY

¶14

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE - 560003 REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶15

THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGARA DIVISION, BANGALORE - 560098

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:52187 WP No. 37267 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGARA DIVISION, BANGALORE - 560098

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY MS. SPOORTHY V., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶22

SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 4)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 18.07.2025 BEARING NO.VA AA (RARANAVA) PR/466/2025-26 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 (VIDE ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The petitioner has challenged an order bearing No.ªÀ.D(gÁgÁ£ÀªÀ)/¦Dgï/466/2025-26 dated 18.07.2025 passed by

¶28

the respondent No.3. He has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.3 to consider his representation dated 22.08.2025 and grant post facto sanction of a plan in respect of building already constructed by him.

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:52187 WP No. 37267 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

(i) The petitioner claims that he is the absolute owner of property bearing site No.34, ward No.73 Srigandadakavalu, Muthuraya Swamy Layout, Sunkadakatte, Bangalore. He claims that after raising huge loans, he had put up construction in accordance with the building bye-laws. However, since the construction was put up without obtaining a plan, he submitted a representation dated 22.08.2025 seeking a post facto sanction or regularization under Section 240(8) of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 (henceforth referred to as 'the BBMP Act, 2020').

¶32

(ii) However, he received a provisional order dated 18.07.2025 under Section 248(1) of the BBMP Act, 2020 and a show cause notice dated under Section 248(2) of the BBMP Act, 2020, calling upon him to submit his reply. The petitioner submitted his reply on 27.11.2025 and requested the respondents to regularize the construction and not to take any coercive measure.

¶33

(iii) In the meanwhile, the respondent No.3 had addressed a letter dated 30.07.2025 to the respondent No.4 to take steps to disconnect the water supply to the subject

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:52187 WP No. 37267 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

property. It was mentioned in the said notice that an order under Sections 248(3) and 356 of the BBMP Act, 2020 is passed.

¶37

(iv) The petitioner claims that he was not served with the order under Sections 248(3) and 356(1) of the BBMP Act, 2020. The petitioner is therefore before this Court challenging the provisional order dated 18.07.2025 issued by the respondent No.3 under Section 248(1) of the BBMP Act, 2020. He has also sought for a direction to consider the representation dated 22.08.2025.

¶38

The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above submissions and submitted that the petitioner is entitled for regularization of the construction put up. He contends that if the construction is in accordance with the building bye-laws, the respondent No.3 would not be prejudiced if a post facto sanction is granted.

¶39

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that an order under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020 is already passed and a follow up order under Section 356(1) of the BBMP Act, 2020 is also passed. He contends

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:52187 WP No. 37267 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

that unless the petitioner challenges the said orders, he cannot challenge the provisional order passed under Section 248(1) of the BBMP Act, 2020 and seek for a direction to regularize the construction.

¶43

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶44

A perusal of the communication dated 30.07.2025 addressed to the respondent No.4 shows that an order under Section 248(3) and Section 356(1) of the BBMP Act, 2020 is already passed. As a consequence of the above, the respondent No.3 had directed respondent No.4 to disconnect the water supply to the building in question. Therefore, unless the petitioner challenges the order passed under Section 248(3) and 356 of the BBMP Act, 2020, he cannot assail the provisional order passed under Section 248(1) of the BBMP Act, as it has merged in the order passed under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020.

¶45

In view of the above, no interference is warranted with

¶46

the provisional order dated 18.07.2025 and no direction can be issued to grant a post facto sanction to regularise the building

¶47

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:52187 WP No. 37267 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

constructed by the petitioner. Consequently, the communication addressed by the respondent No.3 to the respondent No.4 cannot be upset. If the petitioner is interested, he may challenge the order passed under Sections 248(3) and 356 of the BBMP Act, 2020 before the appropriate authority and seek interim prayers before the appropriate authority.

¶50

In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed off ,

¶51

directing the petitioner to approach the appellate authority against the order passed under Sections 248(3) and 356 of the BBMP Act, 2020 and in the said appeal, he may seek for interim relief. This appeal shall be filed within a period of 15 days from today. Until the appeal is filed and till 15 days from now, the respondent No.4 shall not give effect to the communication dated 30.07.2025 addressed by the respondent No.3 to it. It is made clear that this interim protection is only to enable the petitioner to file an appeal and the same shall not be construed as if it is granted till the disposal of the appeal.

¶52