Demolition must be deferred to preserve the statutory appeal pending consideration of interim protection.

The petitioners challenged the City Corporation Commissioner’s revised final order dated 10 September 2026 under Section 321(3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (“KMC Act”), directing removal of an alleged unauthorised fifth floor by 9 October 2026.

They contended that the order was issued without notice and that, following the confirmation order dated 12 January 2024, further action required notice under Section 462(1) of the KMC Act.

The petitioners had challenged the 2024 confirmation order in a civil suit, O.S. No. 95/2024, but stated that they would withdraw it and pursue an appeal under Section 443-A of the KMC Act.

The Court considered whether demolition should proceed before the petitioners could seek that statutory remedy.

Whether demolition under the revised final order should proceed without notice under Section 462 of the KMC Act.

Whether demolition should be deferred to allow the petitioners to withdraw their civil suit and pursue an appeal under Section 443-A, including seeking condonation or exclusion of time and interim relief.

Section 321(3) of the KMC Act provides the basis for the confirmation order concerning the alleged unauthorised construction; Section 462(1) was invoked by the petitioners as requiring notice before further action; and Section 443-A provides a statutory appellate remedy.

The Court’s operative approach was to preserve the opportunity to pursue that remedy: the petitioners could seek condonation of delay or exclusion of time spent prosecuting the civil suit and writ petition, while the Appellate Authority would consider those requests and any application for interim relief within the statutory framework.

The Court treated the 12 January 2024 confirmation order as having attained finality, subject to the pending civil suit, and observed that the suit had been wrongly framed.

It reasoned that immediate demolition could deprive the petitioners of an effective opportunity to pursue the statutory appeal and demonstrate bona fides in seeking condonation or exclusion of time.

Rather than keep the writ petition pending or decide the disputed statutory objections, the Court considered it just to defer demolition so the Appellate Authority could address the appeal, limitation, and interim protection.

The respondents were directed to defer demolition for eight weeks from the date of the order and, if an appeal was filed within that period, until the Appellate Authority considered the petitioners’ requests concerning condonation or exclusion of time and interim relief.

The petitioners were directed not to alter the structure pending a final decision in the appeal.

The Court did not determine the merits of the challenge to either order or conclusively decide the petitioners’ Section 462 objection.