ORDER : Aggrieved by the order dated 30-6-2016, passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the petitioner’s appeal under Section 443A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (for short, ‘the K.M.C. Act’), the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the absolute owner and is in possession of the property bearing Survey No. 50/4, situate within the limits of Ward No.8 of K.G. Kothihosahalli, Kodigehalli Main Road, Bengaluru. The said property was acquired by the petitioner’s father in pursuance of an order dated 18-3-1959 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Abolition of Inams. Since his father was in possession of 2 guntas in Survey No. 50/4, he was registered as a permanent tenant under Section 5(1) of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954. After the death of his father, he has succeeded to the property. Initially, the property was within the limits of Kodigehalli Village Panchayat. Subsequently, it came within the limits of Byatarayanapurua, C.M.C. 3. One Mr. Ravi addressed a letter dated 21-4-2014 to the Executive Engineer, B.B.M.P., contending that there is an unauthorised construction in Survey No.50/3 belonging to his father. On the basis of the said letter, respondent No.3, the Assistant Executive Engineer, issued a provisional order on 1352014 to the petitioner for putting up illegal construction on his property. Subsequently, respondent No.3 also issued a confirmation order, dated 26-5-2014, under Section 321(3) of the K.M.C. Act. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the order dated 26-5-2014, he filed an appeal before the learned Tribunal. However, by order dated 30-6-2016, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the petitioner’s appeal. Hence, the present petition before this Court. 4. Mr. G. V. Shashi Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised the following contentions before this Court: Firstly, the petitioner happens to be the owner and is in possession of the property bearing Survey No.50/4. Secondly, he has been issued a trade licence for carrying on his business in the name and style of M/s. Sushma Chicken Centre. The said trade licence was issued on 17-5-2014 and has been renewed till 3132017. Moreover, after the petitioner had raised a construction over his property, he has been granted an electricity connection for the said building. Secondly, he has been issued a trade licence for carrying on his business in the name and style of M/s. Sushma Chicken Centre. The said trade licence was issued on 17-5-2014 and has been renewed till 3132017. Moreover, after the petitioner had raised a construction over his property, he has been granted an electricity connection for the said building. Thirdly, in case, the Akrama Sakrama scheme were to come into force, the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of the said scheme. Under the said scheme, his illegal construction would be regularised by the Government. Therefore, respondent No.3 is not justified in issuing the confirmation order dated 26-5-2014. According to the learned counsel, the learned Tribunal has not noted these vital facts, and has erred in dismissing the petitioner’s appeal. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside by this Court. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the impugned order. 6. According to Section 313 read with Section 314 of the K.M.C. Act, a person is not permitted to raise any construction until and unless his building plans are approved by the Municipal Corporation. In this case, it is by the B.B.M.P. Merely because the petitioner may have the trade licence issued by the B.B.M.P., it would not make his construction a legal one. Similarly, because the petitioner may have an electricity connection in his name, it would not make the construction raised by him a legal one before the learned Tribunal and before this Court. Before the learned Tribunal, the petitioner had frankly conceded that the building plans were never approved by the respondent. Thus, obviously, the building has been raised in violation of the law. 7. It is, indeed, trite to state that the B.B.M.P. is duty bound to question an illegal construction being carried out by a resident of the city. Once it is pointed to the B.B.M.P. that an illegal construction exists, it is duty bound to issue the provisional order, and the confirmation order, to the petitioner. The learned Tribunal was concerned with a single issue whether the confirmation order dated 26-5-2014 was legally valid or not? Considering the fact, the petitioner has admittedly raised a construction without a sanctioned plan, obviously, the confirmation order dated 26-5-2014 was a valid order. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. The learned Tribunal was concerned with a single issue whether the confirmation order dated 26-5-2014 was legally valid or not? Considering the fact, the petitioner has admittedly raised a construction without a sanctioned plan, obviously, the confirmation order dated 26-5-2014 was a valid order. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any illegality, or perversity in the impugned order. This petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed.