Appellate authority must promptly consider interim protection before demolition where a revenue-entry application is pending.

The petitioner challenged a provisional order and show-cause notice dated 23 June 2026, and an undated confirmation/demolition order, issued under Sections 243 and 244 of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024 (“GBG Act”) in respect of his property.

He contended that he had purchased a constructed property reflected in Form-B revenue entries, had applied for Form-A entries, and that his application was pending; he also alleged that the proceedings arose from a civil dispute with another person.

The respondents submitted that the petitioner could pursue the statutory appeal under Section 250, where the relevant matters could be considered.

The petitioner agreed to pursue that remedy but sought protection against demolition while his request for interim relief was considered.

1. Whether the petitioner should be relegated to the statutory appellate remedy under Section 250 of the GBG Act to challenge the provisional and confirmation orders.

2. Whether coercive action against the property should be restrained temporarily while the petitioner pursued the appeal and sought interim protection.

Sections 243(3)(c), 243(3)(d), and 243(3)(e), and Section 244(1) of the GBG Act provide the statutory basis for the impugned proceedings and orders; Section 250 provides an appellate remedy against the relevant order.

The Court applied the principle that where an adequate statutory remedy is available, the petitioner should ordinarily pursue that remedy, leaving the issues for consideration by the appellate authority.

The Court did not decide the merits of the impugned orders or the petitioner’s entitlement to revenue entries or building approval.

The Court considered the availability of the Section 250 appeal and the respondents’ submission that the issues could be examined by the appellate authority.

It also noted the undisputed possibility that the petitioner had applied for Form-A revenue entries and that, if admitted to those entries, his request for approval of the standing structure could be considered.

In view of those circumstances, the Court left the merits—including whether the application had been filed and whether it affected the confirmation order—to the appellate authority, while recognizing the need to prevent coercive action from defeating the petitioner’s position before his interim request could be considered.

The petitioner was permitted to seek interim protection, and the authorities were called upon to desist from coercive measures for two months, with the appellate authority directed to consider the petitioner’s interim request at the earliest.