Every Occupant Must Be Heard: Karnataka High Court on Jeya Pride Demolition Orders
The Karnataka High Court on October 5, 2026 quashed notices to BESCOM and BWSSB to cut power and water to Jeya Pride in Kagadasapura, read down a demolition confirmation order under Section 243 of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, and ordered every occupant to be served and heard. Here is what the court decided and what Bengaluru flat buyers should check.
For the flat owners of Jeya Pride, a residential complex in Kagadasapura Village in Bengaluru East taluk, the most immediate threat was practical. Notices dated September 2, 2026 went to BESCOM and BWSSB directing disconnection of electricity and water supply to the building. The orders behind those notices, a provisional order and a confirmation order under the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024, recorded deviations in setback and the construction of an additional floor. The owners say nobody served them.
On October 5, 2026, the Karnataka High Court quashed the power and water disconnection notices and sent the demolition proceedings back for a hearing that includes every occupant. The ruling did not decide whether the building deviates from its plan. It decided who must be heard before anything is confirmed.
The short answer. In Writ Petition No. 31128 of 2026, Justice B M Shyam Prasad allowed the flat owners' petition in part. The court found the provisional order "does not even refer to whom these notices are addressed," read the confirmation order down as a continuation of the provisional stage, gave the petitioners eight weeks to respond, directed that copies be served on every occupant with an opportunity of personal hearing under Section 243(3)(d), and quashed the communications for disconnecting electricity and water. The trade-off: owners get a real chance to answer the alleged deviations, but the demolition proposal itself remains alive until the authority decides after that hearing.
What happened at Jeya Pride?
The petitioners, two couples who own flats on the third and fourth floors, told the court they had bought units in the complex. Their challenge was to a provisional order and a confirmation order under Section 243 of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024, and to the consequential notices to BESCOM and BWSSB.
The proceedings had an unusual origin. A person who asserted an agreement to sell dated January 2, 2024 for a unit in the building had earlier petitioned the High Court, complaining that the Greater Bengaluru Authority had not acted on his complaint about illegal construction by the developer. On July 3, 2026, the court disposed of that petition after the authority's counsel said officers had not acted under Section 243 because of census and other responsibilities, and that proceedings would begin with a report within four weeks. The provisional order followed.
The respondents show how Bengaluru's new civic structure now handles such cases. They included the Chief Commissioner of the Greater Bengaluru Authority, and the Deputy Director and Assistant Director of Town Planning for Central CVR Zone-1 of the Bengaluru Central City Corporation. The landowning family and the developer, M/s Jeya Builders, were also named. The court noted that the confirmation order referred to the builder as the GPA holder for the owner of the land, which means the orders were framed around the developer even though, on the owners' case, every unit had already been sold.
The flat owners argued that the proceedings began on a report made without an effective inspection, that the developer and landowner had sold all units and had no subsisting interest, and that buyers were never given notice of the inspection or the provisional order.
What did the High Court decide?
The court found that the provisional order, which recorded deviations in setback and the construction of an additional floor, "does not even refer to whom these notices are addressed." It said notice "must be addressed to the concerned after due inspection as contemplated under Section 243[2] of the GBG Act." That failure, the court said, "lends credence to the petitioner's case that the Confirmation Order is without an opportunity that is imperative" under the statutory scheme.
Rather than quash both orders, the court took a middle path. It read the confirmation order down "as being in continuation of the original Provisional Order," so the proceedings return to the provisional stage. It gave the petitioners liberty to respond within eight weeks, directed the town planning official to ensure copies of both orders are served on every occupant, and required an opportunity of personal hearing "as contemplated under the proviso to Section 243[3][d] of the GBG Act" before deciding whether to confirm. It quashed the disconnection communications outright.
What about the person who complained?
The court examined the complainant's position. His counsel said his sale agreement with the builder had "gone sour with his investments not yielding returns." The court said this "only speaks of a private dispute between this respondent and the builder," and that he "must work out his remedy against the builder." In the demolition proceedings, it said, he "has exhausted his locus in initiating the process," and it is now for the purchasers of the units to respond to the alleged deviations, apart from what the owner and builder may say.
That is a useful line for buyers. A complaint can set statutory machinery in motion, but once it is running, the people whose homes are affected are the ones who must be heard.
How did the main arguments fare?
| Issue | Flat owners' argument | What the court did |
|---|---|---|
| Notice of the provisional order | Purchasers were never served | Found the order did not say to whom it was addressed |
| Confirmation of demolition | Confirmed without the personal hearing the act provides | Read the confirmation down to the provisional stage |
| Power and water disconnection | Should be quashed | Quashed the communications to BESCOM and BWSSB |
| Time to respond | Owners need an opportunity to answer the deviations | Eight weeks to respond; copies to be served on every occupant |
| Whether the building deviates from the plan | Section 243 is meant to allow deviations to be fixed or regularised where the law permits | Not decided; left to the authority after the hearing |
What does Section 243 of the GBG Act require before demolition?
The judgment describes the scheme in stages. Section 243(2) contemplates an inspection. Section 243(3)(c) and (d) provide for a provisional order. The proviso to Section 243(3)(d) provides for a personal hearing before there is confirmation of the provisional order. The petition also challenged action under Section 243(3)(e) and Section 244(1), which were the provisions cited in the confirmation order.
The owners' senior counsel argued that the purpose of the provisional order and hearing is to let those concerned remove deviations, bring construction within compoundable limits or seek regularisation where the statute permits, before demolition. The court did not rule on that argument directly, but its order restores the stage at which such a response can be made. PropNewz has explained how plan deviations are assessed in our guide to sanctioned building plan deviations.
The court's approach also tells buyers something about timing. It did not wipe the slate clean by quashing the provisional order. It kept the proceedings alive and fixed the defect by requiring notice and a hearing. A building with recorded deviations can therefore remain under a live provisional order for some time, which matters to anyone buying a resale flat in it.
What should Bengaluru flat buyers check, and do now if they get a notice?
The Jeya Pride owners told the court they were never served with the orders. Buyers can reduce that risk before they buy, and act quickly if a notice arrives. Our explainer on commencement, completion and occupancy certificates covers the approvals to ask for first.
- Before buying, compare the sanctioned plan's floor count and setbacks with the building as built.
- Ask the seller or builder in writing whether any notice under the GBG Act or earlier municipal law has been issued.
- Ask whether the building has an occupancy certificate and keep a copy.
- Keep your sale deed, khata and utility bills in your name, so you can show you are a person concerned.
- If any notice is received, note its date, the section cited and to whom it is addressed.
- Coordinate with other owners and the association, because orders may affect every occupant.
- Take legal advice promptly and use the hearing opportunity the law provides.
If you are comparing projects in the same part of the city, such as Sobha Dream Acres on Panathur Road, the same document checks apply. That is a general step for any purchase, not a finding about any project.
What happens next?
The eight week window runs from October 5, 2026. Within it, the petitioners can respond to both orders. The town planning official must ensure every occupant is served and given a chance to reply, followed by a personal hearing, before deciding whether to confirm. Until then, the disconnection notices stand quashed. The judgment does not say whether the deviations recorded are real, how large they are, or whether they can be regularised. Those questions now go back to the authority, this time with the people who live in the building in the room.
Frequently asked questions
What did the Karnataka High Court decide in the Jeya Pride case?
On October 5, 2026, in Writ Petition No. 31128 of 2026, it allowed the flat owners' petition in part, read the confirmation order down to the provisional stage, directed service on every occupant with a personal hearing under Section 243(3)(d) of the GBG Act, and quashed the power and water disconnection communications.
Did the court decide whether the building violates its plan?
No. The provisional order recorded deviations in setback and the construction of an additional floor, but the court did not rule on whether they exist or can be regularised. It sent the matter back so the petitioners and other occupants can respond and be heard before the authority decides on confirmation.
How long do the flat owners have to respond?
The court gave the petitioners liberty to file a response to the two orders within eight weeks from October 5, 2026, and called on the town planning official to ensure copies are served on every occupant of the complex, with an opportunity to reply and a personal hearing.
What did the court say about the person who complained?
The complainant asserted a sale agreement with the builder that had gone sour. The court said this was a private dispute he must pursue against the builder, that he had exhausted his locus by initiating the process, and that it was now for the purchasers to respond to the alleged deviations.
Last updated 2026-11-01. PropNewz Team.
Contact Us
Stay updated with latest news and new projects!
Tell us what you want, We'll do the rest.
Share your budget and where you're looking. An advisor who has actually walked the sites will shortlist a handful of RERA-registered projects and tell you which to skip.