Demolition proceedings cannot be confirmed without notice and personal hearing to affected occupants.

The petitioners, purchasers of flats in the “Jeya Pride” residential complex, challenged a provisional order and a confirmation order issued under Section 243 of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024, concerning alleged deviations from the sanctioned plan, including setback violations and an additional floor.

They also challenged consequential notices directing disconnection of the building’s electricity and water supply.

The proceedings followed an earlier High Court direction, made on a complaint by the ninth respondent, requiring the authorities to consider commencing statutory proceedings.

The petitioners contended that the owners, builder and occupants had not received notice or a fair opportunity to respond or be heard.

The Court found that the provisional order did not identify to whom it was addressed and that the affected parties had not been put on notice.

1. Whether the confirmation order could stand where the affected occupants, owner and builder had not been given notice and an opportunity to respond and receive a personal hearing under Section 243.

2. Whether the consequential directions to disconnect electricity and water should remain in force while the statutory proceedings were reconsidered.

3. Whether the ninth respondent’s private dispute with the builder entitled him to continue directing the proceedings, or whether the affected purchasers and property stakeholders should respond to the alleged deviations.

Section 243(2) of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024, contemplates inspection in the course of the statutory enforcement process; the Court held that notice must be addressed to the concerned persons following due inspection.

Under Section 243(3), the provisional-order process must afford the affected persons an opportunity to respond, including the personal hearing contemplated by the proviso to Section 243(3)(d), before confirmation.

The Court treated the procedure as allowing affected parties to address alleged deviations before a demolition proposal is confirmed.

Although Section 244(1) was cited in the impugned confirmation order, the Court’s stated reasoning principally applied Section 243.

The Court noted that the provisional order recorded alleged deviations but did not identify the persons to whom notice was addressed, supporting the petitioners’ contention that the statutory notice process had not been followed.

Because the affected occupants, owner and builder had not been put on notice, the confirmation could not operate as a concluded order without the opportunity to respond and be heard required by Section 243(3).

The Court therefore read the confirmation order as continuing the provisional process, rather than finally confirming demolition, so the authority could hear the affected parties and decide whether confirmation was warranted.

It also considered the ninth respondent’s asserted agreement and investment dispute to be private matters to be pursued against the builder; the purchasers and other stakeholders, rather than the complainant, were to respond to the alleged planning deviations.

The Court directed the second respondent to serve the relevant orders on every occupant, allow the petitioners and other affected persons eight weeks to file responses, provide a personal hearing, and thereafter decide whether the provisional order should be confirmed.

The notices directing disruption of electricity and water supply were quashed.

The operative portion contains an apparent transposition of dates: it describes the “Confirmation Order” as dated 7 July 2026 and the “original Provisional Order” as dated 28 August 2026, whereas the petition and the judgment’s earlier account identify the provisional order as dated 7 July 2026 and the confirmation order as dated 28 August 2026.