LAWS(KAR)-2025-11-11

HARISH RAVILLA Vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER BBMP

Decided On November 24, 2025
Harish Ravilla Appellant
V/S
Chief Commissioner Bbmp Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the confirmation order bearing No[*******************]/10/2025-26 dtd. 1/7/2025 passed by the respondent No.3 under Sec. 248(3) of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 (henceforth referred to as 'BBMP Act, 2020'). He has also sought to quash the notice bearing No[*******************************]4/2025-26/2303 dtd. 21/7/2025 issued by respondent No.5.

(2.) (i) The petitioner claims to be the owner of the property bearing No.35, Old Khata No.1125/32 presently BBMP Khata No.1294/1203/1125/32 in Sy.Nos.19/1 and 91/1 situated at Pattandur Agrahara village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, in a gated community named, "White Rose". He claims that after obtaining a plan from the competent authority, he has put up construction. However, the respondent No.3 without noticing the plan sanctioned had issued a notice under Ss. 248(1) and 248(2) of the BBMP Act, 2020 and thereafter, followed it up by an order under Sec. 248(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020. He contends that the respondent Nos.4 and 5 have disconnected the electricity to the building constructed by the petitioner based on a communication by the respondent No.3.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent No.3 has proceeded on the assumption that the petitioner did not have a building plan sanctioned. He claims that the petitioner has a building plan duly sanctioned and therefore, the proceedings will have to be recommenced by the respondent No.3 in the light of the sanctioned plan produced by the petitioner. He submits that no useful purpose would be served by directing the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority. He therefore, prays that the impugned confirmation order passed by the respondent No.3 be set at nought and the notice issued by the respondent No.5 be quashed and a direction be issued to the respondent Nos.4 and 5 to restore the electricity connection to the building constructed by the petitioner.