A. Venugopal Reddy v. Chief Commissioner

Order or the impugned Confirmation Order dated 05.11.2024.

[C] The petitioner was not aware of the proceedings until the Greater Bengaluru Authority officials visited the petitioner's property on 09.07.2026 stating that they were acting in terms of this Court's Order dated 09.04.2026 in the writ petition in W.P. No.9668/2025 and that there would be demolition. [D] The petitioner has filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and the petitioner is only issued with a copy of the provisional order and the notice that is relevant to the property in No.57/B, West Herohalli, Bengaluru within BBMP Ward No. 29. The petitioner has no interest in this property which is different from the petitioner's property, and in fact, it is addressed to the fourth respondent who

cannot have a locus not being the adjacent owner of the petitioner's property.

¶3Sri R S Ravi submits that the petitioner though arrayed as a respondent [the fourth respondent in the writ petition in W.P. No.9668/2025], he is not served and therefore an application is filed for recall of the order, and the learned Senior Counsel also submits that if this Court does not intervene to prevent demolition, the petitioner's appeal as against the Confirmation Order would be rendered nugatory. Sri Pawan Kumar, a learned standing counsel for the first to third respondents who accepts notice for these respondents, is heard for disposal of the petition dispensing notice to the fourth to sixth respondents [the petitioners in the writ petition in W.P. No.9668/2025].

¶4The petitioner is shown as served and unrepresented in the writ petition in W.P.

No.9668/2025, but the question of condonation of delay and the question relating to the petitioner's grievance with the initiation and culmination of the proceedings under Section 248 of the BBMP Act will have to be examined, and in the meantime, if there is precipitation for demolition, the appellate remedy available to the petitioner under Section 250 of the GBG Act will be of no consequence.

¶5Sri R S Ravi is categorical in stating that the construction is completed many years back and occupied by persons [the tenants] claiming under the petitioner. On a comprehensive examination of these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there must be interference to ensure there is no precipitous action during the pendency of the appeal that the petitioner may file and subject to any interim orders that could be in the appeal. Hence, the following.

ORDER [A] The petition stands disposed of calling upon the Greater Bengaluru Authority and its Officers not to take any precipitous action unless the petitioner's appeal is decided or there is an interim order after due opportunity to the petitioner in such appeal. [B] It is needless to observe that this Court has not examined the merits of the petitioner's grievance with the Confirmation Order as all questions relating thereto must be examined in the appeal.

Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

AN/-

((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:40338( WP(No.(23792(of(2026( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010529832026( ( ( INATHEAHIGHACOURTAOFAKARNATAKAAATABENGALURUA RDDATEDATHISATHEA3 ADAYAOFAAUGUST,A2026A BEFOREA THEAHON'BLEAMR.AJUSTICEABAMASHYAMAPRASADA WRITAPETITIONANO.A23792AOFA2026A(LB-BMP)A BETWEEN:AA A - A.-VENUGOPAL-REDDY- AGED-ABOUT-46-YEARS,-- S/O-LATE-A.-NARASAREDDY,-- RESIDING-AT-NO.-143,-- SHANESHWARA-LAYOUT,-- ANDRAHALLI,-V.N.-POST,-- BENGALURU-560091.- …PETITIONER- (BY-SRI.-R.S.-RAVI.,-SENIOR-ADVOCATE-FOR- ------SRI.-HARSHA-KUMAR-GOWDA-H.R.,ADVOCATE)- AND:ADigitally signedtiby A VANAMALA0N 1.- CHIEF-COMMISSIONER- Location: BRUHAT-BENGALURU-- HIGH0COURT MAHANAGARA-PALIKE--OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560001.- - 2.- ASSISTANT-EXECUTIVE-ENGINEER,- HEROHALLI-SUB-DIVISION,-- BRUHAT-BENGALURU-- MAHANAGARA-PALIKE-(BBMP)-- B.E.L-LAYOUT,-1-STAGE,-- RAJARAJESHWARI-NAGARA-ZONE,-- BENGALURU-560091.- ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:40338( WP(No.(23792(of(2026( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010529832026( ( ( - 3.- EXECUTIVE-ENGINEER,- BBMP-HEROHALLI-SUB-DIVISION,-- WARD-NO.72,-BENGALURU-560091.- - 4.- MR.-R.-JANARDHANAIAH,- AGED-ABOUT-71-YEARS,-- S/O-LATE-MR.-RAGHAVAPPA-- RESIDING-AT-SITE-- NO.-57B,KATHA-NO.-164,- HEROHALLI-GRAMA,- YESHWANTHPURA-HOBLI,-- BENGALURU-560091.- - 5.- MR.-J.MOHANKUMAR- AGED-ABOUT-43-YEARS,-- S/O-R.-JANARDHANAIAH-AND-- LATE-BHAGYALAKSHMI,-- RESIDING-AT-SITE-NO.2,-- TH13 -MAIN-ROAD,-J.C.NAGAR,-- MAHALAKSHMIPURA-POST,- BENGALURU-560086.- - 6.- MRS.-J.-NETHRAVATHI,-A- AGED-ABOUT-41-YEARS,-- D/O-R.JANARDHANAIAH-AND-- LATE-BHAGYALAKSHMI,-- RESIDING-AT-SITE-NO.2,-- TH13 --MAIN-ROAD,-J.C.NAGAR,-- MAHALAKSHMIPURA-POST,-- BENGALURU-560086.- …RESPONDENTS- (BY-SRI.PAWAN-KUMAR.,-ADVOCATE-FOR-R1-TO-R3)- - THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 05.11.2024 PASSED BY THE R-2 BEARING NO. SA.KA.AA/ HE.U.V/ RA.RA.NA.VA/ C.O/ 11/ 24-25 AT ANNX-H; DIRECT THE R-1 TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL DATED 24.07.2026 FILED BY THE PETITIONER PRODUCED AT ANNX-K. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner asserts ownership of a residential property bearing No.164, Assessment/Sy. No.164 having 'B' Katha No.7108 of Herohalli Village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru [the subject property]. The petitioner is served with a copy of the Confirmation Order in No.11/2024-25 dated 05.11.2024 under Section 248(3) of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 [for short, 'the BBMP Act'] for demolition on the allegation that the petitioner has constructed a residential building without a Sanctioned Plan. The petitioner has filed an appeal against this Order under Section 253 of the BBMP Act, and this appeal is yet to be numbered. The petitioner, notwithstanding the appeal filed, seeks this Court's interference with the afore Confirmation Order dated 05.11.2024. 2. Sri R S Ravi, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, argues for interference, asserting the following. [A] The fourth respondent, who does not own any property adjacent to the petitioner's property, has perpetually filed a complaint resulting in initiation of the proceedings under Section 248 of the BBMP Act. [B] The petitioner is not served with the Provisional