IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 33622 OF 2025 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

SMT. USHA SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS WIFE OF SHRI J. SHANKAR RESIDING AT NO.62, 2^ND FLOOR, LOWER PLACE ORCHARDS SADASHIVA NAGAR, BENGALURU-560003 …PETITIONER (BY SMT. UDITA RAMESH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. GREAT BENGALURU AUTHORITY REPRESENTED THROUGH THEIR COMMISSIONER

02, 16^TH CROSS ROAD, VYALIKAVAL, MALESHWARA Digitally BANGALORE-560003 signed by SUMA Location:

2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER HIGH WEST ZONE, BBMP COURT OF BANGALORE-560003 KARNATAKA …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.09.2025 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF THE GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY ACT, 2024 (GBA), EXERCISING POWER UNDER SECTION 243(3)(e) AND (f) OF THE GREATER BENGALURU GOVERNANCE ACT, 2024 (STATED AS SECTION 243(a) AND (f) IN THE PRAYER PORTION OF THE PETITION) BEARING NO.AAUKTHARU/PASHCHIMA/VALAYA2/P.R/01/2025-2026 AT ANNEXURE-H.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has challenged an order bearing No.DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ/¥À²ÑªÀÄ/ªÀ®AiÀÄ-2/¦.Dgï/01/2025-26 dated 25.09.2025 passed by the respondent No.1 under Sections 243(3)(e) and (f) of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024 (for short, 'the GGBA, 2024') read with Section 248(3) of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 (for short, 'the BBMP Act, 2020).

2. The petitioner contends that she is the owner of the second floor of the residential house bearing No.62, "Ramprasad" situate at Palace Lower Orchards, Bangalore-560 003, comprising of site and the three storeyed house and that she had constructed a temporary structure on the terrace of the petition schedule property. She contends that her sister had filed a petition in W.P. No.30386/2024 before this Court contending that the construction put up by the petitioner is illegal and the same needs to be demolished. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had filed suits in O.S. No.25073/2021 and 25072/2021 for partition and separate possession which are pending consideration before the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru. The writ petition referred above was disposed off by this Court on 29.04.2025 on the following terms:

"5. The respondent-BBMP on the basis of mahazar having issued 313 notice is to proceed further in terms of Section 248. The 4^th respondent is to make out reply to 313 notice within a period of two weeks from today. Upon such reply being made out, respondent-BBMP to proceed further as is permissible in law.

6. It is made clear that the 4^th respondent shall not seek for any unnecessary adjournments in the proceedings under Section 248 as may be initiated by the respondent-BBMP.

7. All contentions are kept open. It is made clear that present proceedings under Section 248 are to be proceeded without reference to any civil dispute and must be restricted to violation of sanctioned plan, building by-laws and other regulations of BBMP. The proceedings under Section 248 are to be initiated and concluded within a period of two months from today."

fs Later, the respondent No.2 passed a provisional order under Section 248(1) of the BBMP Act, 2020 for removal of the unauthorized structure. The petitioner submitted her reply on 23.06.2025. However, there was no communication from the respondent No.2. The sister of the petitioner then filed C.C.C No.1107/2025 before this Court following which the respondent No.1 served an order dated 25.09.2025 on the petitioner on 27.09.2025 for removal of the unauthorized structure. The petitioner contends that she was not served with any notice by the respondent No.1 before initiating action and therefore, she has challenged the order passed by the respondent No.1. 3. When this Court queried the learned counsel for the p