High CourtsSingle Bench(2026) 11 KAR CK 0274

T. Hanumaiah & Anr. vs The Commissioner, Central Bangalore City Corporation & Anr.

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru Bench · Decided on 5 November 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
B M Shyam Prasad, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 34289 of 2026 (LB-BMP)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 339 words

The short question presented for consideration in this petition is whether there should be demolition of the construction by the petitioners identified as being in deviation from the Sanctioned Plan when the petitioners’ appeal against a decision in this regard and an application therein for interim stay are pending consideration. The petitioners have presented this question impugning the notice issued by the first respondent on 02.11.2026 [Annexure-K] referring to the Confirmation Order.

Sri. V. Srinivas, the learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri. Pawan Kumar, a learned standing counsel for the respondents who accepts notice, are heard for the disposal of the petition. Sri.V.Srinivas submits that the petitioners have preferred an appeal against the Confirmation Order dated 22.05.2026 under Section 243(3)(e) and 244(1) of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024 [for short, ‘the GBG Act’] with the appellate authority in Appeal No.136/2026 under Section 250 thereof along with an application for stay.

On the first date of hearing the Appellate Authority has only issued notice calling for records, but with the issuance of the impugned notice dated 02.11.2026 the petitioners have filed an application for advancement. The Appellate Authority has favoured the application listing the petition on 13.11.2026. The petitioners’ apprehension is that there would be precipitative action if there is no protection until 13.11.2026. In support of the request for an order protecting the petitioners’ interest until then, Sri.V.Srinivas submits that the building is complete and the impugned notice dated 02.11.2026 is to the occupants to vacate the premises in the construction to facilitate demolition and that the deviations alleged are only in the setback which can be considered for regularization in terms of the Notification dated 05.01.2026 and even the later notifications.

In consideration of these submissions, this Court finds that the precipitation under the impugned notice must be put off until 13.11.2026, and hence, the petition stands disposed of directing the respondents to defer all action until 13.11.2026 and proceed further subject to the orders by the Appellate Authority in the pending appeal on such day.