KARNATAKA v. (BY SRI PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
(iii) The writ petition stands disposed of
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The impugned order dated 11.08.2025 passed by respondent no.2 vide Annexure-A to the writ petition is hereby set aside; (ii) Liberty is reserved to the respondents to initiate appropriate action against petitioner under the provisions of the Greater Bengaluru…
Judgment
(BY SRI ROHAN S., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BBMP (NOW RENAMED AS G.B.A) HAVING OFFICE AT: N.R.SQUARE BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER MAHADEVPURA ZONE BBMP (NOW RENAMED AS GBA) HAVING OFFICE AT: RHB COLONY WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD BANGALORE - 560 048. Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …PETITIONER
3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER HOODI SUB-DIVISION, BBMP (NOW RENAMED AS GBA) BANGALORE - 560 048. (BY SRI PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE THE BEARING CONSTITUTION OF CONFIRMATION TO QUASH
11.08.2025 PRAYING ORDER DATED INDIA - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:16862 WP No. 9436 of 2026 HC-KAR NO.©©JA¦/¸ÀPÁC/ºÀÆG«/ªÀÄ.ªÀ/678/2025-26 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2/THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER, MAHADEVPURA ZONE BBMP, BENGAURU UNDER SECTION 248(3) OF THE BBMP ACT, 2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER
Action was initiated against the property of the petitioner on the ground that he has put up construction in violation of building bye-laws and the sanctioned plan and the impugned order of demolition has been passed. The impugned order is passed under the repealed Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 (BBMP Act, 2020) and is dated 11.08.2025.
The BBMP Act got repealed with effect from 15.05.2025 and is replaced by the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024 (the GBG Act, 2024).
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Zonal Commissioner is not the competent authority to pass such an order under the GBG Act, 2024 and it is the - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:16862 WP No. 9436 of 2026 HC-KAR Joint Commissioner. It is further submitted that, with the new amendments to the building bye-laws, there is a relaxation in respect of set back area which has to be left. The impugned order is also erroneous on the said count, as it does not take into consideration the amended bye-laws.
Learned counsel for the respondents upon instructions submits that appropriate action will be initiated against the petitioner in accordance with the GBG Act, 2024.
Operative part
Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The impugned order dated 11.08.2025 passed by respondent no.2 vide Annexure-A to the writ petition is hereby set aside; (ii) Liberty is reserved to the respondents to initiate appropriate action against petitioner under the provisions of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024 accordance with law; - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:16862 WP No. 9436 of 2026 HC-KAR (iii) The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE PGG List No.:1 Sl No.:6
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: (iii) The writ petition stands disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020; Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.