Bengaluru Owner Must Get Hearing on Claim His Building Predates 1989 Before Civic Body Decides Whether to Confirm Provisional Order: Karnataka HC

The petitioner, owner of Property No. 51, Central Street, Neelasandra, challenged a provisional order under Section 243(3)(c) of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024, alleging construction without a sanctioned plan.

The accompanying notice under Section 243(3)(d) required him to show cause within fifteen days.

He contended that the property had been acquired by his mother in 1972 and that the construction was decades old; he also alleged that the proceedings were initiated as retaliation for his separate writ petition concerning construction by a neighbour.

The petitioner said he had filed a detailed response on 29 August 2026 and feared it would not be fairly considered.

The respondents submitted that the notice followed an inspection and that the petitioner could respond and receive a personal hearing.

Section 243(3)(c) of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024, provides for a provisional order, while Section 243(3)(d) provides for notice requiring the affected person to show cause against confirmation.

The Court treated the personal hearing contemplated by the proviso to Section 243(3)(d) as a statutory requirement before the petitioner’s grievance against the provisional order could be determined.

The Court did not decide whether the petitioner’s claims concerning pre-1989 or long-standing construction were legally correct; it directed the authority to consider those claims when determining whether to confirm the order.

The Court declined to quash the proceedings because the petitioner’s objections could be addressed through the statutory show-cause process.

Since he had filed a detailed response and disputed the basis and timing of the action, effective adjudication required the second respondent to consider his circumstances and provide a personal hearing.

The Court therefore left the merits—including the petitioner’s assertions about the construction’s age and alleged retaliatory complaint—to the authority’s consideration rather than deciding them itself.

The petitioner was granted liberty to submit a further response seeking a personal hearing, and the second respondent was directed to take it on record, hear the petitioner, and decide whether to confirm the provisional order in light of the Court’s observations.

The petitioner could file a certified copy of the order with the response within one week of receiving it, and the second respondent was directed to defer further proceedings during that period.