The Karnataka High Court considered a writ petition challenging unauthorized construction by the third respondent. The court directed the BBMP to consider the petitioner's representation and the third respondent's reply and pass appropriate orders within six weeks.
BBMP directed to pass appropriate orders considering the reply within six weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.12106/2021(LB-BMP)
BETWEEN
DR. MUHAMMED MAJEED, AGED 72 YEARS S/O LATE MOHAMMED KUNJU RESIDENT OF NO.19/1 AND 19/2, 1ST MAIN, 2ND PHASE, PEENYA INDL AREA, BENGALURU-560 058
... PETITIONER
[BY SRI K.J. KAMATH FOR M/S. KAMATH AND KAMATH, ADVOCATE]
AND
2
PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BANGALORE - 560 058 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. NEERAJ MITTAL
….RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI K.V. MOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2 SRI B.N. PRAKASH FOR R3]
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT R1 AND R2 IMMEDIATELY ACT UPON THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.05.2021 AND THE LEGAL NOTICE DATED 08.06.2021 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER, ATTACHED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-A AND A1 RESPECTIVELY AND CONSEQUENTLY STAY THE ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY CARRIED OUT BY THE R3, UNTIL THE R1 AND R2 IS SATISFIED THAT THE SAME IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW, BY ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner seeks a direction to the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palik (for short ‘BBMP’) to consider their representation dated 15.05.2021 is submitted by the petitioner alleging certain construction by the third respondent which according to the petitioner is unauthorized.
3
the third respondent as to why the action should not be taken in accordance with law for the alleged construction. The third respondent has also submitted his reply to the notice issued. Learned counsel for the third respondent would submit that he is only the lessee from the hands of M/s.M.G.Metals Private Limited. This factor also would be taken into consideration by the BBMP while considering the reply given by the third respondent.
reply and take the matter to its logical conclusion.
All contentions of the parties are kept open.
Sd/- JUDGE
GH
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the BBMP should consider the petitioner's representation and reply from the third respondent regarding alleged unauthorized construction.
Whether a direction should be issued to the BBMP to pass appropriate orders considering the reply within six weeks.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dr. Mohammed Majeed
The Commissioner, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike
The Assistant Executive Engineer, Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike
Plasmix Private Limited
M. Nagaprasanna
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
