Sri. K P Abu Saab v. The Greater Bengaluru Authority

-e1e-e ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:50715( WP(No.(27120(of(2026( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010596662026(e ( e ( INATHEAHIGHACOURTAOFAKARNATAKAAATABENGALURUA e THe DATEDATHISATHEA17 ADAYAOFASEPTEMBERA2026A e BEFOREA e THEAHON'BLEAMR.AJUSTICEABAMASHYAMAPRASADA e WRITAPETITIONANO.A27120AOFA2026A(LB-BMP)Ae e A BETWEEN:AAe A e - SRI.-K-P-ABU-SAAB-e S/O.-LATE-POKER-SAB,- AGED-ABOUT-70-YEARS,-e R/O.-NO.83,-THIMMAIAH-ROAD,-- e NEHRU-PURAM,-- e BENGALURU-560001.- …PETITIONER-e (BY-SRI.-KRISHNA-S-VYAS.,-ADVOCATE)-e AND:A e A e 1.- THE-GREATER-BENGALURU-AUTHORITY-Digitally REPRESENTED-BY-ITS--signed by VANAMALA CHIEF-COMMISSIONER,-- eN N.R.-SQUARE,-BENGALURU-560002.- Location: -HIGH

2.- THE-BENGALURU-SOUTH--COURT OF KARNATAKA CITY-CORPORATION-REPRESENTED-BY-- ITS-COMMISSIONER,-BEGUR-ROAD,- BOMMANAHALLI,-- BENGALURU-560068.- - - -e2e-e ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:50715( WP(No.(27120(of(2026( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010596662026( ( (

3.-THE-JOINT-COMMISSIONER,-BENGALURU-SOUTH--CITY-CORPORATION--BOMMANAHALLI-ZONE/ZONE-2,--JOINT-COMMISSIONER'S-OFFICE,--BEGUR-MAIN-ROAD,--BENGALURU-560068.--…RESPONDENTS-(BY-SRI.PAWAN-KUMAR.,-ADVOCATE)---THIS-WP-IS-FILED-UNDER-ARTICLES-226-AND-227-OF-THE-CONSTITUTION-OF-INDIA-PRAYING-TO-I.-CALL-FOR-THE-RECORDS-LEADING-TO-THE-PROVISIONAL-ORDER-AND-SHOW-CAUSE-NOTICE-BEARING-NO.06/2026-27-DATED-23.06.2026-AND-THE-SUBSEQUENT-UNDATED-CONFIRMATION/DEMOLITION-ORDER-BEARING-NO.NIL;-II.-QUASH,-BY-ISSUANCE-OF-A-WRIT-IN-THE-NATURE-OF-CERTIORARI-OR-ANY-OTHER-APPROPRIATE-WRIT,-THE-PROVISIONAL-ORDER-UNDER-SECTION-243(3)(c)-AND-THE-SHOW-CAUSE-NOTICE-UNDER-SECTION-243-(3)-(d)-BOTH-BEARING-NO.-06/2026-27-DATED-23.06.2026-ISSUED-BY-THE-R-3-VIDE-ANNX-B-AND-B1,-INSOFAR-AS-THEY-RELATE-TO-THE-PETITIONER-AND-THE-SCHEDULE-PROPERTY;III.-QUASH-BY-ISSUANCE-OF-A-WRIT-IN-THE-NATURE-OF-CERTIORARI-OR-ANY-OTHER-APPROPRIATE-WRIT,-THE-UNDATED-CONFIRMATION-/-DEMOLITION-ORDER-BEARING-NIL-ISSUED-BY-THE-R-3-UNDER-SECTION-243(3)(e)-AND-244(1)-VIDE-ANNEXURE-E-INSOFAR-AS-IT-

RELATES TO THE PETITIONER AND THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY.

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

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

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner's grievance is with the Provisional Order and the Confirmation Order under Section 243 of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024 [for short, 'the GBG Act']. These Provisional and Confirmation Orders are produced as Annexures B and B1. The petitioner's case is that he has purchased a constructed property that is admitted to revenue entries in Form-B both digitally and otherwise and that the present proceedings are initiated at the instance of a person with whom he has a civil cause.

¶2Sri. Krishna S Vyas, the learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the afore

circumstances, submits that [a] the petitioner has already filed an application as is made permissible for issuance of revenue entries in Form-A, [b] the application is pending and if the petitioner is admitted to revenue entries in such Form, he will also be entitled to apply for plan approval even for the standing structure and [c] in the circumstances, if action is taken to demolish standing structures in the subject property, the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and injury. The learned counsel emphasizes that it is in these circumstances that he would request for this Court's interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without relegating the petitioner to the alternative remedy under Section 250 of the GBG Act.

¶3Sri. Pawan Kumar, a learned standing counsel who accepts notice for the respondents, is heard. The learned Standing Counsel does not dispute that in terms of the campaign underway, it is

possible that the petitioner could have filed an application for revenue entries in Form-A and that if the petitioner is admitted to the benefit of such entries, the request for approval of standing structure would also be considered. However, the learned standing counsel submits that all aspects could be considered even by the appellate Authority if the petitioner avails statutory remedy.

¶4At this stage, Sri. Krishna S Vyas submits that the petitioner will avail the appellate remedy but must be protected from precipitation because the Authorities could take some time to decide on the petitioner's request for an interim order against demolition in such appeal. These circumstances and submissions are considered. It is undisputed that if the petitioner has already submitted application for the revenue entries in Form-A and that if the petitioner is admitted to revenue entries in such

Form, he could be entitled to approval of the building as it now stands.

¶5This Court must observe that the petitioner has alternative remedy where these undisputed circumstances must be considered before affirming the impugned Confirmation Order. As such, the petitioner must avail statutory appellate remedy, and in the interregnum and in the peculiar circumstances mentioned, there cannot be any precipitation defeating the rights that could be in the petitioner. As such, the following. ORDER [A] The petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to call in question the impugned Provisional/Confirmation Order in an appeal under Section 250 of the GBG Act leaving open all questions to be considered therein including whether

the petitioner has filed an application for revenue entries under the relevant Notification and whether the Confirmation Order must prevail if indeed the petitioner has filed such application. [B] The petitioner will be at liberty to file an application for interim protection during the pendency of the appeal when the afore questions are being considered and the Authorities are called upon to desist from taking coercive measures against the petitioner for a period of two [2] months observing that the appellate Authority shall consider the petitioner's request for interim order at the earliest.

Sd/-(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE AN/-