Vacate Notice Before the Appeal Is Heard: Karnataka HC Puts Demolition on Hold Until November 13

On November 2, 2026, the occupants of a completed building on C Main Road, Pipeline Basappa Garden, in central Bengaluru received a notice from the Central Bangalore City Corporation. It asked them to vacate, to facilitate demolition. The owners had already appealed against the order behind it, and their appeal was listed for November 13. Three days after the notice, on November 5, the Karnataka High Court stepped in to make sure the building would still be standing when the appeal was heard.

The order, in T. Hanumaiah and Smt. Shantha v. The Commissioner, Central Bangalore City Corporation, Writ Petition No. 34289 of 2026, was passed by Justice B M Shyam Prasad. It comes a month after the same judge dealt with another demolition case under the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024. In October, he ruled that flat owners at Jeya Pride in Kagadasapura had to be heard before a demolition order could be confirmed, which PropNewz covered in our report on the Jeya Pride ruling.

The short answer. The court directed the respondents "to defer all action until 13.11.2026" and to proceed after that subject to the orders of the appellate authority in the pending appeal. The owners had challenged a confirmation order dated 22.05.2026 in Appeal No. 136 of 2026, filed under Section 250 of the Act, and their counsel said the alleged deviations were only in the setback and could be considered for regularisation under a Notification dated 05.01.2026. The trade-off: owners got breathing room until their appeal is heard, but the court did not stay the confirmation order or rule on the deviations, so the outcome still rests with the appellate authority.

What happened in the Pipeline Basappa Garden case?

According to the order, the petitioners challenged a notice issued on 02.11.2026 by the Commissioner of the Central Bangalore City Corporation, referring to a confirmation order. The second respondent was the Assistant Executive Engineer of the corporation's Zone-2, Gandhinagara Sub-Division. The court framed the question as "whether there should be demolition of the construction by the petitioners identified as being in deviation from the Sanctioned Plan" when the owners' appeal and stay application were still pending.

The owners had appealed against the confirmation order dated 22.05.2026, passed under Section 243(3)(e) and Section 244(1) of the Act, to the appellate authority under Section 250, in Appeal No. 136 of 2026, along with an application for stay. On the first date, the appellate authority only issued notice calling for records. After the November 2 notice, the owners applied to advance the hearing, and the appellate authority listed the appeal on 13.11.2026.

What did the owners tell the High Court?

Their counsel submitted that "the building is complete", that the November 2 notice was addressed 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." Their concern was that there "would be precipitative action" if there was no protection until the appeal date.

The corporation's standing counsel accepted notice and was heard. The order does not record any argument from the corporation on the merits of the deviations or on regularisation.

What exactly did the court order?

The court found "that the precipitation under the impugned notice must be put off until 13.11.2026". It disposed of the petition by directing the respondents to defer all action until that date and to "proceed further subject to the orders by the Appellate Authority in the pending appeal on such day." It did not quash the notice, did not stay the confirmation order beyond that date, and did not express a view on whether the setback deviations can be regularised.

In other words, the High Court protected the appeal process rather than deciding the dispute. Once the appellate authority hears the appeal and the stay application, its orders will govern what the corporation can do next.

How does this compare with the Jeya Pride ruling?

In Writ Petition No. 31128 of 2026, decided on October 5, the problem was notice. The court found that the provisional order, which recorded deviations in the setback and an additional floor, "does not even refer to whom these notices are addressed" and that notice "must be addressed to the concerned after due inspection as contemplated under Section 243[2] of the GBG Act." It read the confirmation order down to be in continuation of the provisional order and directed that copies be served "on every occupant of the complex" with an opportunity of personal hearing.

In the Pipeline Basappa Garden case, the owners had already reached the appeal stage, so the issue was timing rather than notice. The common thread is that the court has insisted, in both cases, that the statutory steps under the Act be completed before irreversible action is taken against an occupied building. For a general explanation of how deviations from a sanctioned plan arise, see PropNewz's guide to sanctioned building plan deviations.

Why do the stages before demolition matter?

Because each stage is a chance to fix or answer a deviation. In the Jeya Pride case, the flat owners' senior counsel argued that the purpose of the provisional order and the opportunities that follow, "including an opportunity of personal hearing and a subsequent Confirmation thereof, is to ensure that the concerned can remove deviations, if any," and bring the construction "within the compoundable limits or even seek regularization as could be permissible under the statute before there is demolition." The court read the confirmation order down so that the occupants could "avail themselves of the opportunity of personal hearing to demonstrate whether there should be confirmation of the proposition for demolition."

The Jeya Pride proceedings also show how such cases begin. They followed a High Court order of 03.07.2026 on a petition by a person who said the authorities had not acted on his complaint about illegal construction. Counsel for the authorities had told the court that "because of census and other responsibilities", action under Section 243 had not been taken. The court later said that complainant "has exhausted his locus in initiating the process" and that it was for purchasers of the units to respond. In both cases, the people living in the building ended up carrying the burden of answering for its construction.

What should Bengaluru buyers take from these two cases?

First, Bengaluru's civic structure has changed. The respondents in these cases include the Greater Bengaluru Authority and new city corporations such as the Central Bangalore City Corporation, acting under the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024. A buyer checking for notices on a building should know which corporation and zone the property falls under.

Second, the Act provides stages: inspection, a provisional order, a confirmation order, and an appeal. The Hanumaiah order shows the value of using the appeal and of asking the appellate authority to advance the hearing when action is imminent. The Jeya Pride order shows the value of being identified and served as a person concerned.

Third, regularisation is a live question. The owners relied on a Notification dated 05.01.2026 and later notifications. The court did not decide whether those notifications help them. A buyer of a building with setback deviations should not assume that regularisation will be available; it is something to verify with the corporation and a professional before buying.

A seven-point checklist for buyers and owners in Bengaluru:

1. Before buying, compare the sanctioned plan's setbacks and floors with the building as built.
2. Ask the seller in writing whether any notice under Section 243 of the Act has been issued.
3. Identify which city corporation and zone the property falls under.
4. If a notice arrives, note its date, its section and the order it refers to.
5. Check whether a confirmation order exists and file any appeal under Section 250 promptly.
6. If action is imminent, ask the appellate authority to advance the hearing, as these owners did.
7. Take legal advice on whether any regularisation notification applies to the deviation alleged.

Frequently asked questions

What did the Karnataka High Court order in T. Hanumaiah v. The Commissioner on November 5, 2026?

Justice B M Shyam Prasad disposed of the petition by directing the Central Bangalore City Corporation authorities to defer all action under a notice dated 02.11.2026 until 13.11.2026, and to proceed after that subject to the orders of the appellate authority hearing the owners' pending appeal. The court did not decide whether the building deviates from its plan.

Which law governs demolition of deviating buildings in Bengaluru now?

Both Karnataka High Court orders discussed here arise under the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024. The courts refer to Section 243 for inspection, provisional and confirmation orders, Section 244, and an appeal under Section 250 to an appellate authority. Buyers should read any notice for the exact section it cites.

What did the owners argue about regularisation?

Their counsel submitted that the building is complete and that the alleged deviations are only in the setback, which can be considered for regularisation under a Notification dated 05.01.2026 and later notifications. The court recorded this submission when deferring action but did not rule on whether regularisation is available.

What should a Bengaluru flat buyer do on receiving a demolition or vacate notice?

Note the date, the section cited and the order it refers to. Check whether a confirmation order exists and whether an appeal is possible, file promptly, and if action is imminent, ask the appellate authority to advance the hearing. Coordinate with other owners and take legal advice without delay.

This article summarises court orders for general information and is not legal advice. Neither order decides whether the buildings deviate from their plans.

Last updated 2026-11-07. PropNewz Team.