SRI.E.ANTONY CLIVE, vs THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER,
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55241
WP No. 31128 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010682082026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 5 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 31128 OF 2026 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. E. ANTONY CLIVE,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
S/O MR. DHANARAJ EMMENUEL
2. SMT. SUSHMA P,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
W/O E. ANTONY CLIVE
PETITIONER 1 & 2 ARE
RESIDING AT FLAT NO.402,
FOURTH FLOOR, JEYA PRIDE,
KAGADASAPURA VILLAGE,
(FORMERLY KR PURA HOBLL),
MARATHAHALLI HOBLL,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
BENGALURU- 560093.
3. SRI.SOMPALLE PHANINDRA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
S/O SRI. S. SUDARSHAN
4. SMT. RAJEEVI B E
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
W/O SRI.SOMPALLE PHANINDRA
PETITIONER 3 & 4 ARE
RESIDING AT FLAT NO.304,
THIRD FLOOR, JEYA PRIDE,
KAGADASAPURA VILLAGE,
(FORMERLY KR PURA HOBLI),
Digitally
signed by
VANAMALA
N
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55241
WP No. 31128 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010682082026
MARATHAHALLI HOBLI,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
BENGALURU- 560093.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. D.R. RAVI SHANKAR., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. NAVEEN G.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER,
GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY,
N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU 560 002.
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
TOWN PLANNING,
CENTRAL CVR ZONE-1,
BENGALURU CENTRAL CITY CORPORATION,
BENGALURU 560 002.
3. THE ASST. DIRECTOR,
TOWN PLANNING,
CENTRAL CVR ZONE-1,
BENGALURU CENTRAL CITY CORPORATION,
BENGALURU - 560 002.
4. SRI. C. ARUN KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
SON OF CHIKKAVEERAPPA REDDY
EXTENSION KAGGADASAPURA,
C.V. RAMAN NAGAR
5. SMT. SHOBHA,
W/O SRI C. ARUN KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 53
6. MS. VIDYASHREE,
D/O SRI C. ARUN KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
7. MS. RAMYASHREE,
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55241
WP No. 31128 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010682082026
D/O SRI C. ARUN KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
RESPONDENTS 4 TO 7
RESIDING AT NO. 65,
6TH C CROSS, PATEL EXTENSION
KAGGADASAPURA, C.V. RAMAN NAGAR
BENGALURU-560 093.
8. M/S JEYA BUILDERS,
A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 15, 1ST FLOOR
SUNITHA RESIDENCY, 5TH A MAIN ROAD
MALLESHPALYA,
BENGALURU - 560 075.
(REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
SRI. N. KALYANA SRINIVASA RAO).
9. SRI. MUKKU THIRUPATHI REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
SON OF KRISHNA REDDY MUKKU
RESIDING AT SITE NO. 56,
MCI LAYOUT, NEAR ACHARYA COLLEGE,
SOLADEVANAHALLI,
CHIKKABANAVARA BENGALURU - 560 090.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.PAWAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. SURESH S., ADVOCATE FOR R9)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (A) QUASHING
THE CONFIRMATION ORDER BEARING
NO.UO.NI.NA.YO./CVR/PR/05/26-27 DATED 28.08.2026
PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 UNDER SECTION
243(3)(E) AND 244(1) OF THE GREATER BENGALURU
GOVERNANCE ACT, 2024 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-E;
(B) QUASHING THE PROVISIONAL ORDER/NOTICE
DATED 07.07.2026 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2
UNDER SECTION 243(3)(C) AND (D) OF THE ACT
PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE D AND D-1 RESPECTIVELY;
(C) QUASHING THE CONSEQUENTIAL NOTICES DATED
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55241
WP No. 31128 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010682082026
02.09.2026 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 TO
(BESCOM) BEARING NO. SA NE NA YO (CV RA
NA)/PR/218/26-27 AND (BWSSB) BEARING NO. SA NE
NA YO (CV RA NA)/PR/218/26-27 DIRECTING
DISCONNECTION OF ELECTRICITY AND WATER SUPPLY
RESPECTIVELY TO THE PETITIONERS RESIDENTIAL
BUILDING THE SAID NOTICES ARE PRODUCED AS
ANNEXURE-F AND F-1 RESPECTIVELY.
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 petitioners assert that they have purchased
certain units in a residential flat complex called ‘ Jeya
Pride ’ constructed in Kagadasapura Village,
Marathahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk. The
petitioner’s grievance is with the Provisional and
Confirmation Orders under Section 243 of the
Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024 [for short,
‘ the Act’ ] and the consequential notices addressed to
M/s. BESCOM and BWSSB for disruption of power
and water connections to the building.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55241
WP No. 31128 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010682082026
2. This Court must observe that the
impugned Provisional Order is after this Court's order
dated 03.07.2026 in W.P.No.22483/2025 [LB-BMP].
The seventh respondent has filed this petition
alleging that the Greater Bengaluru Authority [ GBA ]
and its officers have not acted upon his complaint
about illegal construction by a developer [ the eighth
respondent ] asserting Agreement to Sell dated
02.01.2024 to purchase a unit in the residential
building. This Court has disposed of this petition
calling upon the jurisdictional Assistant Executive
Engineer/Assistant Director of Town Planning to file
a report with the jurisdictional Joint Commissioner
or such other authority for the purposes of
commencement of proceedings under the GBG Act in
the light of the following submissions on behalf of the
authorities:
“ Mr. B.V. Muralidhar submits that because of
census and other responsibilities, the officers
have not taken action as contemplated under
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55241
WP No. 31128 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010682082026
Section 243 of the Greater Bengaluru
Governance Act, 2024 [for short, the GBG Act’],
and when queried, the learned counsel submits
that proceedings would be begun and a Report
in these regards woud be filed into the Court
within four [4] weeks from today.”
3. Sri. D. R. Ravishankar, the learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioners, submits that this Court
must interfere with both the impugned Provisional
and Confirmation Orders because of the following
circumstances.
[A] The proceedings are initiated because of a
report consequent to this Court's direction
without even an inspection; and even if
there is any inspection, it is during the
pendency of the earlier petition but that
could not be an effective inspection as it is
not with due notice to the concerned.
[B] The developer and the owner of the property
in which the construction is complete have
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55241
WP No. 31128 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010682082026
no subsisting interest because they have
sold all the units and the purchasers have
not been issued with either notice of
inspection or of the Provisional Order.
[C] These clearly violate the principles of
natural justice, and there is lack of
opportunity that is contemplated under
Section 243[3][d] of the GBG Act which
provides for a personal hearing before there
is confirmation of the Provisional Order.
4. Sri. D. R. Ravishankar proposes to
canvass that recourse to the proceedings under
Section 243 of the GBG Act must not be had only to
demolish the building and the scheme under the
GBG Act with a Provisional Order and opportunities,
including an opportunity of personal hearing and a
subsequent Confirmation thereof, is to ensure that
the concerned can remove deviations, if any, and
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55241
WP No. 31128 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010682082026
ensure that the construction is brought within the
compoundable limits or even seek regularization as
could be permissible under the statute before there is
demolition.
5. Sri. Pawan Kumar, a learned standing
counsel who accepts notice for the first to third
respondents, and Sri Suresh S., a learned counsel
who seeks leave to accept notice for the ninth
respondent, are heard in the light of these
submissions and on perusal of records. It stands out
that the Provisional Order under Section 243[3][d] of
the GBG Act, which records certain deviations in the
setback and construction of an additional floor, does
not even refer to whom these notices are addressed
and it cannot be gainsaid that notice must be
addressed to the concerned after due inspection as
contemplated under Section 243[2] of the GBG Act.
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55241
WP No. 31128 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010682082026
6. This particular failure lends credence to
the petitioner's case that the Confirmation Order is
without an opportunity that is imperative in the light
of the statutory Scheme under Section 243[3] of the
GBG Act. The next question is: should this petition be
allowed in its entirety quashing both the impugned
Provisional and Confirmation Orders as also the
communications addressed for disruption of electricity
and water supply to the building ? This Court is also
persuaded to examine the locus of the ninth
respondent.
7. The ninth respondent asserts a sale
agreement with the builder, which according to the
learned counsel for this respondent, has gone sour
with his investments not yielding returns. This only
speaks of a private dispute between this respondent
and the builder, and this respondent must work out
his remedy against the builder. Insofar as the present
proceedings, it would suffice for this Court to observe
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55241
WP No. 31128 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010682082026
that this respondent has exhausted his locus in
initiating the process and it must now be for the
petitioners, and those who are similarly placed as
purchasers of the units in the complex, to respond to
the allegations of deviations in the Sanctioned Plan.
This is apart from what the owner and the builder
themselves may have to say.
8. The petitioners and the others, including
the owner/builder, have not been put on notice as
observed earlier and this Court is of the considered
view that the Confirmation Order, which refers to the
builder as the GPA holder for the owner of the land
which is now developed, must be read down to be in
continuation of the Provisional Order under Section
243[3][c] with opportunity to the petitioners and the
other occupants to respond so that they can avail
themselves of the opportunity of personal hearing to
demonstrate whether there should be confirmation of
the proposition for demolition. Hence, the following:
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55241
WP No. 31128 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010682082026
ORDER
[A] The petition is allowed-in-part. The
Confirmation Order dated 07.07.2026
is read down as being in continuation
of the original Provisional Order dated
28.08.2026.
[B] The petitioners are reserved with liberty
to file response to these two orders
within eight [8] weeks from today
calling upon the second respondent to
ensure copies of these two orders are
served on every occupant of the
complex giving them an opportunity to
file response/reply thereto and extend
an opportunity of personal hearing to
the petitioners and these persons as
contemplated under the proviso to
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55241
WP No. 31128 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010682082026
Section 243[3][d] of the GBG Act and
then decide on whether there must be
confirmation.
[C] The communications for disruption of
electricity and water supply
[ Annexures- F and F1 ] are quashed.
Sd/-
(B M SHYAM PRASAD)
JUDGE
SA
Ct:sr