Allowed

Sivasankaran Krishnan v. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Karnataka HC29 Sept 2021WP/51861/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. It directed the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike to consider specific representations against unauthorized constructions only after hearing all affected parties and pass appropriate orders within twelve weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to BBMP to consider representations after hearing parties and pass appropriate orders within twelve weeks.

Sivasankaran Krishnan Vs Bruhat Bengaluru… — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.51861 OF 2019 (LB-BMP)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

SIVASANKARAN KRISHNAN S/O MR M.KRISHNAN AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.20, PRESTIGE LAKE VISTA VARTHUR MAIN ROAD, WHITEFIELD BENGALURU – 560 066.

¶8

SIDDHARTHA DAS S/O MR.B.B.DAS AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.14, PRESTIGE LAKE VISTA VARTHUR MAIN ROAD WHITEFIELD BENGALURU – 560 066.

¶9

SOMA DAS W/O SIDDHARTHA DAS AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.14, PRESTIGE LAKE VISTA VARTHUR MAIN ROAD WHITEFIELD BENGALURU – 560 066.

¶10

KRISHNAPRASAD VENKATA KAMISETTY S/O LATE MR.PANDURANGAIAH CHETTY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.18, PRESTIGE LAKE VISTA

¶11

¶12

VARTHUR MAIN ROAD WHITEFIELD BENGALURU – 560 066.

¶13

PADMAJA KAMISETTY W/O KRISHNAPRASAD VENKATA KAMISETTY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.18, PRESTIGE LAKE VISTA VARTHUR MAIN ROAD WHITEFIELD BENGALURU – 560 066.

¶14

ARUN MUTHUKUMAR S/O MR E.P.MUTHUKUMAR AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.19, PRESTIGE LAKE VISTA VARTHUR MAIN ROAD WHITEFIELD BENGALURU – 560 066.

¶15

SUSHMA NATARAJAN W/O MR.B.NATARAJAN AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.24, PRESTIGE LAKE VISTA VARTHUR MAIN ROAD WHITEFIELD.

¶16

ARUN KUMAR SUNDARAM S/O MR.K.SUNDARAM AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.22, PRESTIGE LAKE VISTA VARTHUR MAIN ROAD WHITEFIELD BENGALURU – 560 066.

¶17

¶18

ANITA SUBRAMANIAN W/O ARUN KUMAR SUNDARAM AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.22, PRESTIGE LAKE VISTA VARTHUR MAIN ROAD WHITEFIELD BENGALURU – 560 066.

¶19

... PETITIONERS

¶20

(BY SRI AJESH KUMAR S., ADVOCATE (VIDEO CONFERENCING))

¶21

AND

¶22

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N R SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶23

KISHORE TARA CHAND S/O MR TARA CHAND NARAINDAS AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS

¶24

ELIZABETH TARA CHAND @ SHAKIRA TARA CHAND W/O MR KISHORE TARA CHAND AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.

¶25

BOTH RESIDING AT VILLA NO.25 PRESTIGE LAKE VISTA RAMAGONDANAHALLI AIRPORT-WHITEFIELD ROAD BENGALURU – 560 066.

¶26

AND ALSO THROUGH THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY VIKRAM NAGAMPALLI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS S/O LATE N.P.BALARAJ NAIDU RESIDING AT VILLA NO.82,

¶27

¶28

AKSHAYA REDSTONE SEEGHALLI, WHITEFIELD BENGALURU – 560 067.

¶29

... RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SRI CHANDAN SANJAY BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR SRI AMIT KUMAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATES FOR R1 (PHYSICAL HEARING)

¶31

SRI KARAN JOSEPH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3 (VIDEO CONFERENCING))

¶32

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PLAN SANCTION DATED 07.03.2018 AS PER ANENXURE-C BY THE RESPONDENT BBMP AND DIRECT THE BBMP NOT TO SANCTION THE CONSTRUCTION OF COMMERCIAL BUILDING IN THE RESIDENTIAL LAYOUT PRESTIGE LAKE VISTA AND; DIRECT THE RESPONDENT BBMP TO INVESTIGATE OR ORDER TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT BBMP TO INVESTIGATE INTO THE COMPLAINT GIVEN BY THE PETITIONERS AS PER ANNEXURE-A TO A8 AND TAKE ACTION AS PER LAW.

¶33

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question a plan sanction for the construction of the premises of second and third respondents in the name of Prestige Lake Vista.

¶36

Heard Sri Ajesh Kumar S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri Chandan Sanjay Bhat for Sri Amit Kumar

¶37

¶38

Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and Sri Karan Joseph, learned counsel appearing for the second and third respondents and perused the material on record.

¶39

Sri Ajesh Kumar S., learned counsel for the petitioners restricts his prayer only to seek a direction to consider the representations of the petitioners against the construction undertaken by second and third respondents. The representations given by the petitioners are appended to the writ petition as Annexures ‘A1’ to ‘A6’.

¶40

The allegation against the first respondent - Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (for short ‘the BBMP’) is, despite the receipt of such representations with regard to alleged construction undertaken by respondent Nos.2 and 3, being in violation of law, the same are not considered.

¶41

Sri Chandan Sanjay Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent - BBMP submits that if reasonable time is given, the representations would be considered and appropriate

¶42

¶43

order would be passed in accordance with law, after hearing the affected parties.

¶44

In view of the aforesaid submissions, the following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

i. The writ petition is allowed.

¶47

ii. The first respondent - BBMP is directed to consider

¶48

those representations appended to the writ petition at Annexures ‘A1’ to ‘A6’, for the purpose for which it is rendered, only after hearing the parties to the lis and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, if not earlier.

¶49

iii. All contentions of all the parties are kept open.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

nvj

¶52

CT:MJ

Sivasankaran Krishnan v. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sivasankaran Krishnan v. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara 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

Dr. (Mrs.) Chitralekha. M. R. Vs Mysuru City Corporation

Ms Sangeetha Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Sri M S Shiva Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S August Ventures Private Limited Vs the Commissioner

Smt Saraswathi Vs the Commissioner Bangalore Bruhath Mahanagara Palike

Miss N Parvathi Vs the Commissioner