P N Sharath Vs the Commissioner

THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER TOWN PLANNING (WEST) OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGAR PALIKE WEST ZONE BASHYAM PARK, SHESHADRIPURAM BENGALURU-560 020

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶29

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CONFIRMATION DATED 11-01-2023 BEARING NO NAM. SA. NI. NA. YO. (PA)1/CO/38A/22-23 PASSED UNDER 248(3), OF THE BBMP ACT BY THE RESPONDENT NO 3 AND 4 VIDE ANNEXURE F TO THE WRIT PETITION.

¶30

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

¶31

3 -

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:30350 WP No. 18051 of 2026

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

The petitioners have called in question Confirmation Order dated 11.01.2023 [ Annexure - F ] under Section 248(3) of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 [for short, ' the BBMP Act' ] and the notice issued on 08.06.2026 for demolition in terms of the Confirmation Order [ Annexure - G ]. Mr. V. Srinivas, the learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. Pawan Kumar, a learned Standing counsel who accepts notice for the respondents, are heard for final disposal of the petition with the petitioners' principal grievance being that the proceedings under Section 248 of the BBMP Act are concluded even without they being served with a copy of either the Provisional Order or the Confirmation Order.

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:30350 WP No. 18051 of 2026

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Mr. V. Srinivas, arguing in support of the petitioners' request for an interim order, submits that the respondents cannot demolish a completed structure without extending opportunities as contemplated under Section 248 of the BBMP Act, and because the Confirmation Order and the preceding Provisional Order are without notice, the lack of opportunity is indisputable. The learned counsel next argues that the proceedings are concluded even without inspection of the property.

¶41

Inarguably, the petitioners have an

¶42

alternative remedy under Section 250 of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024. The petitioners can avail this remedy subject to showing cause for condonation of delay. If the petitioners do avail such remedy, the Appellate Authority will have to call for records and examine whether there must be any interference on the grounds urged by the petitioners.

¶43

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:30350 WP No. 18051 of 2026

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

When such remedy is available to the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to interfere, and this Court is of the opinion that the petition must be disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioners to avail alternative remedy calling upon the Appellate Authority, if the petitioners avail such remedy, to consider the question of delay as well in the circumstances relied upon by the petitioners. At this stage, Mr. V. Srinivas submits that there is imminent threat of demolition, and this Court must ensure that demolition is put off until the Appellate Authority considers the petitioners' request for condonation of delay.

¶46

Mr. Pawan Kumar is heard on this aspect

¶47

as well. This Court is disposing of this petition relegating the petitioners to alternative remedy and if this remedy is to be meaningful, there cannot be any precipitation. The precipitation shall not be until the Appellate Authority considers both the application for

¶48

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:30350 WP No. 18051 of 2026

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

condonation of delay and interim stay by a reasoned order provided the petitioners avail such alternative remedy within six [6] weeks from today. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. It is needless to observe that all questions are left open to be considered by the Appellate Authority.

¶51

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶52

RB

P N Sharath v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P N Sharath 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

M/S. Adyar Ananda Bhavan Sweets India Private Limited Vs M/S Evolve Business Ventures

The National Textile Corporation Vs Bangalore South City Corporation

Smt H v Shruthi Shanakar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. S. v. Nagaraj Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Skylit Engineers and Infrastructure (P) Ltd. Vs Mysore Rural Kanrataka State Road Transport Corporation Employees Housing Co. Operative Society Ltd.

Pradeep Kumar G Vs the State of Karnataka