Smt. C. Pushpavathi v. The Chief Commissioner Gba

-e1e-e ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:37677( WP(No.(17692(of(2026( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010383062026(e ( e ( INATHEAHIGHACOURTAOFAKARNATAKAAATABENGALURUA e NDe DATEDATHISATHEA22 ADAYAOFAJULY,A2026A e BEFOREA e THEAHON'BLEAMR.AJUSTICEABAMASHYAMAPRASADA e WRITAPETITIONANO.A17692AOFA2026A(LB-BMP)Ae e BETWEEN:AA Ae -SMT.-PUSHPAVATHI-e C/O-SATHYANARAYANA,-e AGED-ABOUT-37-YEARS,-RDRESIDING-AT--NO.36,-3 -CROSS,-e SAMPANGIRAMA-NAGAR,--e WILSON-GARDEN,-BENGALURU,--e KARNATAKA-560-027.-…PETITIONER-e (BY-SRI.-NATARAJ-D.,ADVOCATE)-e AND:A e A e 1.-THE-CHIEF-COMMISSIONER,-GBA-Digitally signed by OFFICE-AT--N.R.SQUARE,--VANAMALA BENGALURU-560-002.-N e -Location: HIGH 2.-THE-DEPUTY-DIRECTOR-COURT OF TOWN-PLANNING-ZONE-2-KARNATAKA BENGALURU-CENTRAL-CITY--CORPORATION-GBA,-BENGALURU---560-002.--

3.-THE-ASSISTANT-DIRECTOR--TOWN-PLANNING-BENGALURU-CENTRAL---

CITY CORPORATION GBA, BENGALURU - 560 002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MADHU J N.,ADVOCATE)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED QUASHING DEMAND THE NOTICE DATED 12.05.2026 BEARING NO. G¤£À.AiÉÆÃ/PÉÃ.ªÀ-2/¹.N/19/25-26 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AT ANNEXURE-F.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner who asserts ownership of property bearing No.24, PID No.77-12-24, situated in 6th Cross, II Stage, S.R.Nagar, Bengaluru [for short, 'the subject property], is aggrieved by the second respondent's Order dated 12.05.2026 [Annexure-F].

The second respondent's order is under Section 243

(3)(e) of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024 [for short, 'the GBG Act'] calling upon the petitioner to remove deviations in the construction. This order is after conclusion of the proceedings under Section 243(3)(d) of the GBG Act.

However, Sri Nataraj D., the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that this Court must intervene because the petitioner is not served with notice or extended a due opportunity. Sri Madhu J N, a learned counsel whose appearance for the respondents is accepted, submits that the petitioner contends that the second respondent's impugned order is without jurisdiction and for extraneous consideration but the petitioner should avail remedy under Section 250 of the GBG Act for redressal of the grievance on these grounds.

The question for consideration in these circumstances will be whether this Court must intervene when the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy and in the circumstances this Court opines that the petitioner must be relegated to such an alternative remedy leaving open all questions to be considered in the appeal if the petitioner avails such remedy.

As regards the protection that must be against demolition with the petitioner having to avail alternative remedy, this Court is of the view that the respondents must defer precipitation against construction under the impugned order for a period of four [4] weeks from today. It would be needless to observe that during these four weeks the petitioner shall not put up any construction or occupy the premises and if there is any violation of this condition, it shall be open to the second respondent to ensure that the premises is seized.

The petition stands disposed of in the afore terms.

Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

AN/-