Disposed

Sri. Vishvanath P v. the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagar Palike

Karnataka HC4 Feb 2021WP/15316/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitions challenged a proposed direction to the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike to prevent unauthorized construction. The Court found that the BBMP had already initiated proceedings under the Municipal Corporations Act and was awaiting the outcome of a pending civil suit involving an interim injunction. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with no intervention.

What did the court decide?

No interim stay or direction was granted; the petition was disposed of due to the action taken by the respondents.

Sri. Vishvanath P Vs the Bruhat Bengaluru… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶7

WRIT PETITION No.15316/2020 (LB-BMP)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. VISHVANATH P AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, S/O. PAPEGOWDA, NO.45, 7TH MAIN, BANAGIRINAGAR, BSK 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085.

¶10

SRI. RAKESH A. BOGADI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O. BAGADI, NO.189, 6TH MAIN, 7TH BLOCK, 4TH PHASE, BSK 3RD STAGE,

¶11

BENGALURU - 560 085.

¶12

SRI. L.R. SHIVARAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, S/O. L. RAMEGOWDA, NO.45, 7TH MAIN, BANAGIRINAGAR, BSK 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085.

¶13

SRI SRINIVASA SURENDRA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O B J SURENDRA, NO.187, 6TH MAIN, 7TH BLOCK, 4TH PHASE, BSK 3RD STAGE, BANAGIRINAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 085.

¶14

¶15

SRI. HEMANTH P. AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, S/O PRAKASH M., NO.186, 6TH MAIN, 7TH BLOCK, 4TH PHASE, I BSK 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085. ... PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. KRISHNAMURTHY M.R., ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

THE BRUHAT BENGALURU LMAHANAGAR PALIKE, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 009, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶19

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BANASHANKARI SUB DIVISION, YEDUYURU COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, S KARIYAPPA ROAD, BANASHANKARI, BENGALURU - 560 085.

¶20

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH), BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU.

¶21

THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BANASHANKARI SUB DIVISION, YEDUYURU COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, S KARIYAPPA ROAD, BANASHKARI, BENGALURU - 560 085.

¶22

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (WEST), BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARAPARK WEST, BENGALURU - 560 020.

¶23

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, B.W.S.S.B, BANASHAKARI SUB DIVISION,

¶24

¶25

BANASHAKARI, BENGALURU - 560 085.

¶26

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, S-9, SUB DIVISION, BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY, BANASHANKARI, BENGALURU - 560 085.

¶27

M/S BANASHANKARI INSTITUTE, NO.55, 7TH MAIN ROAD, BHAVANI HBCS LAYOUT, BANASHAKARI 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SINCHANA M.R., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4 SRI. K.K. VASANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R8 SRI. H.V. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R7 R5, R6 SERVED)

¶28

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT R1 TO R4 TO PREVENT ILLEGAL AND UNAUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION BY R8 ON SITE NO.53/54-55, BANASHANKARI 3RD BLOCK, 7TH MAIN ROAD, 4TH PHASE, BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶30

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

This writ petition is stated to be filed in public interest by the residents of Banashankari, 3rd Stage, Bengaluru, seeking a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 4 to prevent unauthorised construction put up by respondent

¶33

¶34

No.8 on site Nos.53/54-55, Banashankari 3rd Block, 7th Main Road, 4th phase, Bengaluru.

¶35

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4/Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike ("BBMP") submitted that as against the illegal construction, action has been initiated under Section 321 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short) and an order has been passed under Section 321(1) of the Act dated 23/10/2020 (Annexure - O) and a subsequent order has been passed under Section 321(2) of the Act on 23/10/2020 (Annexure - P) and thereafter, confirmatory order has been passed under Section 321(3) of the Act on 02/11/2020 (Annexure - Q). Therefore, the BBMP has taken action in accordance with law as against respondent No.8.

¶36

Learned counsel further submitted that respondent No.8 has filed O.S.No.2361/2020, in which there is an order of temporary injunction operating and therefore, the respondent/BBMP is not able to take further steps in the matter.

¶37

¶38

Learned counsel for respondent No.8 did not contradict the submissions made by respondent Nos.1 to 4. When a confirmatory order has been passed under Section 321(3) of the Act, the remedy that is available to the aggrieved party is to file an appeal under Section 444 of the said Act before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, liberty is reserved to respondent No.8 herein to file such an appeal, if so advised.

¶39

In the circumstances, liberty is also reserved to respondent Nos.1 to 4 to seek for vacating of the interim order or rejection of the plaint or dismissal of the suit as advised.

¶40

Since action has been initiated by the respondent/BBMP in the aforesaid terms, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that appropriate order may be made in this matter.

¶41

In the circumstances, having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties on the action initiated by respondent Nos.1 to 4, we dispose of the writ petition as we are satisfied with the action initiated by respondent Nos.1 to 4 in respect of the

¶42

¶43

alleged unauthorised construction put up by respondent

¶44

No.8.

¶45

Writ petition is disposed accordingly.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

Sri. Vishvanath P v. the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagar Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Vishvanath P v. the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagar Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Constituent Attorney Vs the Managing Director

Sri Sandeep K H Vs Smt Sowmya G

Sri Suresh Ram Chaurasia Vs Smt Manushree

Sri Santhosh Ivanagi Vs the General Manager

Abb Employees Union Vs M/S. Abb India Ltd.

Sri. Virapakshappa Pujari Vs the General Manager