The Precious Blood Missionaries Vs the Commissioner

THE PRECIOUS BLOOD MISSIONARIES OFFICE AT GASPAR BHAVAN DHARMARAM COLLEGE POST BANGALORE 560029 REPT BY ITS PRESIDENT FR XAVIER BUDHALI D AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O DIVIYANATHAN BUDHALI RESIDING AT NO 154, ST GASPAR BHAVAN PO BOX NO 2905, BHARATHI LAYOUT, BALAJI NAGAR, BEHIND CHRIST SCHOOL BANGALORE 560029 REGISTERED UNDER KARNATAKA SOCIETY REGISTRATION ACT.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI JOSEPH ANILKUMAR A., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER GREATER BANGALORE AUTHORITY N R SQUARE, HUDSON CIRCLE BENGALURU - 560 002.

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:32985 WP No. 19819 of 2026

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

JOINT COMMISSIONER BOMMANAHALLI ZONE 2 BANGALORE SOUTH BEGUR ROAD BANGALORE - 560 068.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.PAWAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING ANNEXURE-A, THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO. JC/ZONE-02/P.O/34/2025-26 DATED 07/05/2026 ISSUED BY THE R2; DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION FOR REGULARISATION OR MODIFICATION PRESENTED BY PETITIONER AS PER ANNEXURE-K DATED 07/05/2026.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2026:KHC:32985 WP No. 19819 of 2026

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

The petitioner asserts ownership of property bearing No.28, GBA Ward No.178, old Ward No. 152, S G Palya, Balajinagar, Bengaluru [the Subject Property] . The petitioner's grievance is with the Provisional Order dated 07.05.2026 under Section 243[3][c] of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024 [for short, ‘the GBG Act’ ]. The impugned order refers to the Sanction Plan dated 09.12.2024, the construction by the petitioner being under progress and certain deviations.

¶30

Sri Joseph Anil Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that [a] prior to the impugned Notice, the petitioner was issued with Notice under Section 311 of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 calling upon the petitioner to produce certain documents relating to the property in Sy. No. 74, [b] the petitioner is a complete stranger to this property, and because he is

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:32985 WP No. 19819 of 2026

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

a stranger to the property he has replied accordingly,

¶35

and [c] the proceedings are notwithstanding the construction being in accordance with the sanctioned terms even at this stage.

¶36

Sri Pawan Kumar, a learned standing counsel for the respondents who accepts notice for the respondents, are heard for disposal of the petition in the light of the fact that the petitioner is served with a Provisional Order under 243[3][c] of the GBG Act but the second respondent must as contemplated under the proviso to Section 243[3][d] of the GBG Act

¶37

must extend an opportunity of personal hearing to show cause against confirmation of the terms of the Provisional Order.

¶38

This Court must observe that it would be

¶39

open to the petitioner to show cause even now but the petitioner must have a reasonable opportunity. This Court, therefore, is of the opinion that the petition must be disposed of reserving liberty to the

¶40

5 -

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:32985 WP No. 19819 of 2026

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

petitioner to file a response calling upon the second respondent, upon receipt of the Response in terms of the liberty reserved, to extend a personal hearing to the petitioner and then decide on the Orders that must be under Section 243[3][e] of the GBG Act.

¶44

If this forms the first segment for this Court's order, the next segment must be about the construction underway by the petitioner in the subject property. The petitioner's case is that the construction is being carried on in accordance with the Plan and therefore must be permitted to complete

¶45

the construction. However, the Provisional Order refers to violations in the setback and also coverage. This Court is of the view that the petitioner, during the pendency of the proceedings for a Confirmation Order, cannot continue with the construction contrary to the Sanction Plan, and in fact, the statutory authority is empowered under the

¶46

provisions of Section 243 of the GBG Act to call upon

¶47

6 -

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:32985 WP No. 19819 of 2026

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

the person who is constructing contrary to the sanctioned plan to stop construction. Therefore, there must be a direction to the second respondent, to expedite a hearing and even consider the petitioner's request subject to final orders on confirmation of the Provisional Order permitting construction. In the light of the afore, the following

¶51

ORDER

¶52

[a] The petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a Response with the second respondent by 09.07.2026 calling upon the second respondent to schedule a personal hearing as contemplated under the Proviso to Section 243[3][d] of the GBG Act within the next fifteen days.

¶53

[b] The petitioner shall not commence construction unless permitted by the second respondent, who is called upon

¶54

to consider during the pending

¶55

7 -

¶56

NC: 2026:KHC:32985 WP No. 19819 of 2026

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

confirmation proceedings the petitioner's

¶59

request to commence construction subject to the material that the petitioner places on record to justify such a decision.

¶60

[c] The Authorities are called upon not to be precipitous to demolish any standing structure until there is order by the second respondent in terms of this Court’s Order.

¶61

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶62

AN/-

The Precious Blood Missionaries v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Precious Blood Missionaries 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

Newtech India Vs Instakart Services Private Limited

M/S Snowman Logistics Limited Vs Tranco Logistics Pvt. Ltd.

Sterling and Wilson Private Limited Vs Tropicana Habitats India Private Limited

Mr. Ramesh S N Vs the Commissioner

H S Umesh Vs Assistant Executive Engineer

Sri G M Vekatesh Vs Greater Bengaluru Authority