Authority: High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru

Order Date: 12 June 2026

Case Overview

  • Petition: Writ Petition No. 17750 of 2026 (LB‑RES) filed by T N Tyagraj, aged about 70, residing at 63/1, 8th Main, 6th Phase, 1st Stage, Mahaganapati Nagar, Rajaji Nagar, Bengaluru North.
  • Respondents: (1) State of Karnataka represented by Chief Secretary, Department of Urban Development; (2) Deputy Commissioner, Urban Development Cell, Tumakuru; (3) Tumakuru Municipal Corporation; (4) Executive Engineer, T.C.C. Tumakuru; (5) Assistant Executive Engineer, T.C.C. Tumakuru; (6) T.N. Dhiresh Kumar, S/O T.N. Nagaraju; (7) B.M. Rajendra.
  • The petition challenges an order passed by Respondents 3 (Tumakuru Municipal Corporation) bearing No. TUMAPA/HBL/CR‑10/2025‑26 dated 10.06.2026, which confirmed a provisional demolition order under Section 321(3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 and directed demolition at 4 p.m. on 12.06.2026.
  • The petitioner argued that the two‑day period between the order (10 June) and the scheduled demolition (12 June) is unreasonable, especially since an appellate remedy exists under Section 443‑A of the Act and a notice under Section 462 is required when demolition is to be effected after failure to remove offending construction.
  • Counsel for respondents (Sri R. Subramanya) contended that the petitioner was constructing an additional floor despite proceedings under Section 321. The petitioner’s senior counsel (Sri S.S. Yadrami) denied any further construction and asked that this statement be recorded.

Final Outcome

  • The Court disposed of the petition, directing Respondents 3 to 4 and 5 to defer the demolition scheduled for 12 June 2026.
  • Respondents are ordered to issue a notice of demolition after a period of seven (7) days from the date of this order, thereby providing the petitioner an opportunity to avail the appellate remedy under Section 443‑A.
  • The Court observed that if the petitioner pursues the alternative remedy, the appellate authority must consider any request for an interim order independently of the present arrangement.
  • The Court expressly refrained from examining the merits of the rival contentions.
  • The petitioner’s statement that no further construction will be undertaken was taken on record, with a note that authorities may act against any construction contrary to that statement.

Topics: Demolition Order, Appellate Remedy