Disposed

Sri Prashant Rao, 39 Yrs v. Karnataka Appellate Tribunal

Karnataka HC13 Jun 2016WP/27853/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge Common Order in two connected writ petitions directed the parties to approach the pending appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal instead of pursuing litigation in various forums. The court disposed of the writ petitions, restraining precipitous action and discouraging jurisdiction hopping until the Tribunal decides the merits of the construction dispute.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri Prashant Rao, 39 Yrs Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2016)

��

��^��

��

�� !"��#!��$��%�!�

&'��(��)��+,-��./��,��*�0��1(2�

¶6

��-��

¶7

In WP 45636/2015

¶8

G Sudheer, 57 yrs S/o late G S Murthy # 47, 1^st Block, I Main Road Tyagarajanagar Bangalore 28 Petitioner

¶9

(By Sri B S Satyanand, Adv.)

¶10

And

¶11

1 Commissioner

¶12

Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike N R Square, Corporation Buildings Bangalore

¶13

2 Executive Engineer

¶14

Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Basavanagudi Ward / Sub-Dvn. Chennammanakere Achukattu

¶15

Bangalore 28

¶16

3 Asst. Executive Engineer Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

¶17

WP 45636 c/w 27853/2015 G Sudheer Vs Commr., BBMP & Ors

¶18

2/6

¶19

Basavanagudi Ward / Sub-Dvn. Chennammanakere Achukattu Bangalore 28

¶20

4 Mr Prashant Rao, 39 yrs S/o Mr Govinda Rao # 47/A, 1^st Block, I Main T R Nagar, Bangalore 28 Respondents

¶21

(By Sri H Devendrappa, Adv. For R1-3; R4 – party in person)

¶22

In WP 27853/2015

¶23

Sri Prashant Rao, 39 yrs S/o Govind Rao 47/A, I Block, I Main Tyagarajanagar, Bangalore 28 Petitioner

¶24

(Party-in-person)

¶25

And

¶26

1 Karnataka Appellate Tribunal M S Building, Dr Ambedkar Road Bangalore

¶27

2 Commissioner, BBMP Corporation Building N R Square, Bangalore 2

¶28

3 Asst. Executive Engineer

¶29

BBMP, Basavanagudi Sub-Region I Floor, Opp. To SSM School Chennammanakere Achukattu T R Nagar, Bangalore 28

¶30

WP 45636 c/w 27853/2015 G Sudheer Vs Commr., BBMP & Ors

¶31

3/6

¶32

4 Assistant Engineer – Ward 154

¶33

BBMP, Basavanagudi Sub-Region I Floor, Opp. To SSM School Chennammanakere Achukattu T R Nagar, Bangalore 28

¶34

5 Sri Sudheer, 57 yrs S/o late G S Murthy # 47, I Block, I Main, T R Nagar Bangalore

¶35

6 Proprietor Eshwari Constructions # 23, 10^th Cross, 4^th Main 4^th Block, T R Nagar Bangalore 28 Respondents

¶36

(By Sri H Devendrappa, Adv. For R2-4; Sri B S Satyanand, Adv. For R5-6)

¶37

Writ Petitions are filed under Art.226/227 of the Constitution praying to quash the order dated 25.2.2015 – annexure J; direct respondents 2-4 not to issue the occupancy certificate as per S.5.6 of the Building Bye Laws, 2003, etc.

¶38

The Petitions coming on for hearing this day, Court made the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

Mr B S Satyanand, Adv. For Petnr. Mr H Devendrappa, Adv. For Respdts. 1 to 3 Mr Prashant Rao, R4 – party in person

¶41

1 Both the petitions are decided by this common order.

¶42

WP 45636 c/w 27853/2015

¶43

4/6

¶44

G Sudheer Vs Commr., BBMP & Ors

¶45

2 The party-in-person Mr Prashant Rao is aggrieved by the

¶46

construction being raised by the petitioner G Sudheer which, according to him, is being raised in accordance with the plan approved by the Authorities of BBMP. Both the parties appear to be at logger heads and are fighting in different forums. Admittedly, an appeal on the same issues about the authority of the petitioner G Sudheer, to raise the said construction in accordance with the approved plan, is pending with the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal 885/2014 - G Sudheer Vs

¶47

Commissioner, BBMP & Ors.

¶48

3 Recently in the case between the same parties in WA 4354/2015 -

¶49

G Sudheer Vs Commissioner, BBMP & Ors, including the present petitioner Mr Prashant Rao, the Division Bench of this Court has passed

¶50

the following order on 31.5.2016, the relevant portion of the order in

¶51

paragraphs 7 & 8 are quoted below for ready reference.

¶52

7 The learned counsel for the Corporation submitted that the appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal is heard and is now reserved for orders.

¶53

WP 45636 c/w 27853/2015 G Sudheer Vs Commr., BBMP & Ors

¶54

5/6

¶55

8 In the light of the aforesaid facts and the orders passed in the other writ petitions, though it is observed that in the absence of a stay order, the Appellate Authorities have to implement the orders passed by them, it is also stated that it is subject to the final decision of the orders to be passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. In the facts of this case we are satisfied that when the aggrieved person has preferred a statutory appeal and now that the appeal has been heard and reserved for orders, no precipitative action shall be taken by the Bangalore City Corporation till the rights of the parties are decided in that appeal. However, at the same time, the appellant, under the cover of the orders passed by this Court, cannot go on constructing the buildings, which according to the party-in-person he is doing. Under these circumstances, the proper course for us is to issue the following directions:

¶56

(a) Further steps for removal of structures/buildings, which are held to be illegal by the Bangalore City Corporation Authorities shall be taken by the authorities after the rights of the parties is finally adjudicated and a finding is recorded that the appellant Sudheer has put up illegal structures.

¶57

(b) The appellant Sudheer, shall not put up any further structures till the dispute between the parties is adjudicated finally.

¶58

Writ appeal is disposed of accordingly.

¶59

4 It appears from the said order of the Division Bench, that the

¶60

Division Bench has also directed that no precipitative action be taken

¶61

against the said appellant G Sudheer till the rights of the parties are being decided at the appropriate forum.

¶62

6/6

¶63

WP 45636 c/w 27853/2015 G Sudheer Vs Commr., BBMP & Ors

¶64

5 As the appeal 885/2014 is admittedly pending before the learned

¶65

Tribunal, therefore the parties are first expected to approach the said Tribunal raising their grievances along with the relevant evidence and then, the said Tribunal is expected to pass speaking orders deciding the appeal after hearing the parties. The parties cannot be allowed to scatter the litigation at different forums and multiply the litigation in this

¶66

manner and that deserves to be deprecated.

¶67

6 Accordingly, both these writ petitions are disposed of, while

¶68

relegating both the parties before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal 885/2014, where the Tribunal is expected to hear all the parties

¶69

and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, based on relevant

¶70

evidence.

¶71

Sd/Judge

¶72

Sri Prashant Rao, 39 Yrs v. Karnataka Appellate Tribunal

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri Prashant Rao, 39 Yrs v. Karnataka Appellate Tribunal

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Virident Systems Private Limited Vs Nil

M/S Ionidea Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Nil

Gita Krishna Investments Private Limited Vs Nil

Rajeshkar Patil Vs the Executive Engineer

K L Kemparaju S/O Lingegowda Vs the Secretary

Smt S a Pushpa Vs Sri v Prakash