Syed Hassed S G Vs the Chief Commissioner

THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY, (EARLIER BHRUTH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE), CORPORATION CIRCLE, N. R. SQUARE ROAD, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA 560027.

¶16

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH CITY CORPORATION, GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY, (EARLIER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE),

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:31458 WP No. 19011 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

BYATARAYABAPURA, BENGALURU - 560 064.

¶21

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER HEBBAL SUB-DIVISION, J.C NAGAR MAIN ROAD, GBA (BBMP) BENGALURU 560 006.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI.PAWAN KUMAR.,ADVOCATE)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12.06.2026 (BEARING NO. BEM U NA PA/JAM/ A/VA-2/NA/O/26/2025-26) PASSED BY THE R2 VIDE ANNX-D; DIRECT THE R2 TO CONSIDER THE PENDING IA NO. 2/2026 (VIDE ANNX-B) FILED IN GBA NO. 51/2026 IN A TIME BOUND MANNER; DIRECT THE R2 AND 3 NOT TO TAKE ANY ACTION / MEASURES WITH RESPECT TO THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER TILL THE PENDING DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL GBA NO. 51/2026.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:31458 WP No. 19011 of 2026

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

The petitioner is served with a Confirmation Order under Section 243[3] of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024 [for short, ‘the Act’ ], and the petitioner has also availed the appellate remedy against such order in Appeal No.51/2026 with the Chief Commissioner, Greater Bengaluru Authority [for short, ‘GBA ]. In the present petition, the petitioner has called in question, what should be construed as an order under Section 244[1] of the Act. This Order is dated 12.06.2026 and is produced as Annexure-D .

¶32

Sri Prashant L Kanal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that consequent to the impugned order, the jurisdictional Joint Commissioner has taken action to demolish the standing structure on the ground of alleged deviation from the sanctioned plan notwithstanding the pending appeal. Sri Pawan Kumar, a learned

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:31458 WP No. 19011 of 2026

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

standing counsel for the respondents, is heard for the disposal of the petition. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner is issued with a Provisional Order on 28.11.2024 and with a Confirmation Order on 13.12.2024 with a further Notice as contemplated under Section 244[1] of the Act as can be seen from Annexure-D .

¶37

The merits of the petitioner's grievance with the afore orders will have to be examined in the pending appeal which is as per Annexure-A . The Provisional Order is after an earlier litigation resulting in the orders of the Karnataka State Appellate Tribunal on 22.02.2018 in Rev. Appeal No.1031/2016. This Court opines that, for the appellate remedy to be effective, the petitioner must be given adequate protection from demolition for a limited period of time observing that the petitioner would be at liberty to move the Chief Commissioner, GBA for just orders in the pending appeal with a further observation that all questions

¶38

5 -

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:31458 WP No. 19011 of 2026

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

are left open to be duly considered. Hence the

¶42

following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

The petition stands disposed of

¶45

calling upon the authorities to defer all

¶46

coercive measures pursuant to the impugned Order dated 12.06.2026 [Annexure-D] for a period of four [4] weeks from today with liberty to the petitioner to make request for interim orders with the Chief Commissioner, GBA in the pending

¶47

appeal observing that the Chief Commissioner shall consider the petitioner's request for interim order independent of the arrangement now provided on merits.

¶48

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶49

AN/-

Syed Hassed S G v. the Chief Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Hassed S G v. the Chief 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

Manjula Kashinath Vs Bhadra Landmarks Private Limited

Jesu Navin Nishchal Vs Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

M/S. Ameena Traders Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S.Glacio Frozen Foods (P) Limited Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

M/S. Star Steel Exchange Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax

Smt Nagaratnamma G Vs State of Karnataka