SRI. BABJAN vs THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55096
WP No. 30298 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010661542026
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. 30298 OF 2026 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
SRI. BABJAN
S/O LATE SHAIK BASHA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/ AT NO.51, CENTRAL STREET,
NEELASANDRA,
BANGALORE SOUTH,
BENGALORE-560 047
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHIVAPRAKASH M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER
GREATER BANGALORE
AUTHORITY (GBA)
OFFICE HUDSON CIRCLE
BANGALORE-560 001
2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER - RANGE -I
BANGALORE CENTRAL
CITY CORPORATION
UTILITY BUILDING, M.G.ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 001.
Digitally
signed by
VANAMALA
N
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55096
WP No. 30298 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010661542026
3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
BANGALORE CENTRAL CITY
CORPORATION WARD NO.115
VANNAVARA PETE
BENGALORE-560047.
4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
BANGALORE CENTRAL
CITY CORPORATION
WARD NO.115, DOMMALURU
SUB DIVISION IST MAIN ROAD,
IST B CROSS DOMMALURU LAYOUT
BANGALORE-560 071.
…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 ENTIRE RECORDS FROM RESPONDENT NOS.2
AND 3 IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY PRESENTLY
ASSIGNED WITH PID NO.69-9-51, CENTRAL STREET,
NEELASANDRA, BANGALORE; II. QUASH THE NOTICE
BEARING NO.JT.COMMR/ RANGE-1/DO/437/2026-27
DATED. 11/8/2026 AT ANNEXURE-D AND NOTICES
BEARING NO.JT.COMMR/ RANGE-1/DO/437/2026-27
DATED. 11/8/2026 AT ANNEXURE-E ISSUED BY
RESPONDENT NO.2 BY MISUSE AND ABUSE OF PUBLIC
OFFICE AND CONSEQUENTLY TO PASS APPROPRIATE
ORDER FOR MISUSE AND ABUSE OF PUBLIC OFFICE
BY RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55096
WP No. 30298 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010661542026
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, the owner of Property No. 51,
Central Street, Neelasandra, Bengaluru – 560 047
[ the subject property ], is aggrieved by the Provisional
Order under Section 243[3][c] of the Greater
Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024 [for short, ‘the Act’ ]
which reads that the petitioner has put up
construction without a sanctioned plan. The Notice of
this Provisional Order under Section 243[3][d] of the
Act requires the petitioner to show cause against the
confirmation within fifteen days.
2. Sri. M. Shivaprakash, the learned counsel
for the petitioner, submits that this Court must
interfere with the very decision to issue the
Provisional Order and Notice thereof because of the
following circumstances.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55096
WP No. 30298 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010661542026
[A] The petitioner has approached this
Court with the writ petition in W.P.
No.21293/2026 alleging that his
neighbour is constructing without a
sanctioned plan, and this Court has
called for a Report.
[B] This Report is yet to be filed in W.P.
No.21293/2026.
[C] The petitioner's mother was the owner
of the subject property. She acquired
the subject property under the Sale
Deed dated 01.02.1972, and she has
put up construction in the subject
property many decades back.
[c] The present proceedings are only as a
counter at the neighbour's instance
because the petitioner has invoked this
Court’s jurisdiction against the
construction by him.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55096
WP No. 30298 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010661542026
[d] The Provisional Order cannot be
confirmed because it is settled that no
construction which is put up prior to
1989 can be demolished, and that even
otherwise no action can be taken for
demolition if the construction has been
for over decades.
3. Sri. Pawan Kumar, a learned standing
counsel for the respondents who is called upon to
accept notice for the respondents, submits that his
tentative instructions are that the notice is after due
inspection and definitely on a complaint filed by the
neighbour, but it would be open to the petitioner to
file a detailed response which will be considered after
extending a personal hearing as is required under
proviso to Section 243[3][d] of the Act. In response,
Sri. M. Shivaprakash submits that the petitioner has
filed a detailed Reply on 29.08.2026 enclosing
documents and the petitioner's apprehension is that
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55096
WP No. 30298 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010661542026
none of these would be considered because of the
circumstances adumbrated above.
4. These circumstances and rival
submissions are considered. The petitioner's
grievance with the Provisional Order will have to be
considered after extending the petitioner with a
personal hearing. This is a statutory requirement
under Section 243[3] of the Act. If the petitioner has
filed a detailed Response, the petitioner should also
be granted an opportunity of a personal hearing to
justify the cause that he has against the initiation of
the proceedings. Therefore, the proceedings need not
be quashed.
5. However, this Court must observe that
there will be effective and complete adjudication only
if the second respondent, who has issued the
Provisional Order and caused a communication,
considers all the circumstances, including the
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55096
WP No. 30298 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010661542026
petitioner's definite case that [i] a building that is
constructed prior to 1989 is saved in law from action
on the ground of deviation from the sanctioned plan
and [ii] if the construction is built decades back but
no action has been taken, there would be no
justifiable reason to initiate proceedings only because
of a complaint filed as a counter. In the
circumstances, this Court is of the view that the
petition must be disposed of by the following:
ORDER
[A] The petition stands disposed of
reserving liberty to the petitioner to
file a further Response requesting
for a personal hearing.
[B] The second respondent is directed to
take such additional Response on
record and extend a personal
hearing to the petitioner to decide
on whether there must be
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55096
WP No. 30298 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010661542026
confirmation of the Provisional
Order or not in the light of this
Court's observation as afore.
[C] The petitioner will be at liberty to file
a certified copy of this Order along
with the Response within a week
from the date of receipt thereof, and
the second respondent is called
upon to defer further proceedings
for this period.
Sd/-
(B M SHYAM PRASAD)
JUDGE
AN/-