IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 31145 OF 2025 (LB-BMP)

BETWEEN:

SRI.NAGABHUSHANA, S/O A.S. RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, NO. 41, P AND T. COLONY, NEAR GANESHA TEMPLE, HEMAVATHI NAGARA, SARASWATHIPURAM, HASSAN 573 201.

(SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED)

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAMESH CHANDRA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER, Digitally BBMP, (NOW GBA) N.R. ROAD, signed by SUMA BENGALURU - 560 002.

Location:

HIGH COURT OF 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KARNATAKA HEBBAL DIVISION, BBMP, NOW GBA BENGALURU-560 024

3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HEBBAL DIVISION, GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY (GBA), BENGALURU - 560001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI SETTING ASIDE AND QUASHING(A) THE PROVISIONAL ORDER SAID TO HAVE BEEN PASSED UNDER SECTION 321 (1) OF THE KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT UNDER NO.SA.KA.NI.A. (HEBBAL)/P.O/07-/2017-18 DATED 23-08-2017 IS HEREWITH PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

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 the provisional order passed by the respondent No.3 bearing No.Sa.KA.Ni.A.(Hebbal)/P.O/07-/2017-18, dated 23.08.2017 and the confirmation order bearing No.Sa.KA.Ni.A.(Hebbal)/C.O/07/2017-18, dated 04.10.2017, under Sections 321(1) and 321(3) respectively of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (henceforth referred to as ‘the Act, 1976’ for short).

2. The petitioner contends that the property in question belonged to Dr.Prabhakar Sastri and Smt.Savitha Sastri, who allowed it to be developed by a developer named Sri.B.Chittibabu. He contends that the owner and the developer conveyed one of the portions of the property developed to Smt.B.Revathi in terms of a sale deed dated 11.06.2003 and that Smt.B.Revathi had mortgaged the property to State Bank of India, who initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (henceforth referred to as ‘the SARFAESI Act, 2002’ for short) and sold the property by proceeding against the secured asset under Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The petitioner claims that Sri.A.V.Naresh purchased the property at the auction held by the bank and a sale certificate dated 01.09.2017was issued. He claims that he purchased it from Sri.A.V..Naresh, in terms of the sale deed dated 07.01.2020.

3. He contends that long after Sri.B.Chittibabu had alienated the property, respondentNo.3 on 23.08.2017 had issued a notice under Section 321(1) of the Act, 1976 to B.Chittibabu followed by a show cause notice to B.Chittibabu under Section 321(2) the Act, 1976, and thereafter passed a confirmation order against B.Chittibabu under Section 321(3) of the Act, 1976 on 04.10.2017. He contends that these orders are sought to be enforced against the petitioner. He has therefore challenged the aforesaid provisional order, show cause notice as well as the order of confirmation.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above submissions and submitted that the petitioner was not notified and that the orders impugned were not directed against him but was directed against one Sri.B.Chittibabu, who was not even the owner but was a developer. He therefore contends that the petitioner has been condemned unheard and the impugned provisional order and the confirmation order is staring in face of the the petitioner.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents, submits that if the petitioner has purchased the property, then he has stepped into the shoes of the owners as well as the developer. Therefore, he is entitled to challenge the order in an appeal as provided under the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 (henceforth referred to as