Disposed

L Anand Kumar v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC3 Dec 2021WP/53568/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, neighbors sought directions to demolish a structure allegedly built in violation of BBMP byelaws despite a civil court stay. The Court noted that appeals were pending before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal regarding the BBMP notices and interfered with the merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Appellate Tribunal to dispose of the pending appeal within six months and liberty to implead; writ petition disposed.

L Anand Kumar Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.53568/2018 (LB - BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

L. ANAND KUMAR AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O LATE H.C.LAKSHMINARASIMHAN, R/AT NO.453, 4^TH MAIN, 13^TH CROSS, 2^ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE-38.

¶9

SRI. VIVEK RAO AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS S/O. LATE I.K.RAO NO.225, 13^TH CROSS, 2^ND STAGE INDIRANAGAR BANGALORE-38.

¶10

SRI VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED 66 YEARS, S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA NO.457, 13^TH CROSS, 4^TH MAIN, 2^ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR BANGALORE-38.

¶11

... PETITIONERS

¶12

[BY SRI. M.C.RAVIKUMAR, ADV. (VIDEO CONFERENCING)]

¶13

¶14

AND

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANGARA PALIKE,(BBMP) N.R.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 002.

¶16

THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, (BBMP)-(PROJECTS), N.R.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 002.

¶17

SMT. S. R MANJULA W/O. RAJIV RAO SHASTRI, MAJOR,

¶18

SRI RAJIV RAO SHASTRI S/O NOT KNOWN, HINDU, MAJOR, RESPONDENT Nos.3 AND 4 ARE RESIDING AT NO.450, 4^TH MAIN, 13^TH CROSS, 2^ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE-38. ... RESPONDENTS

¶19

[BY SRI. T.M. VENKATA REDDY, ADV. FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. ROHAN HOSMATH, ADV. FOR R3 AND R4 (PHYSICAL HEARING)]

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE DIRECTION TO R-1 AND 2 TO IMMEDIATELY TO TAKE STEPS AND ENSURE THE ILLEGAL STRUCTURE BEING PUT UP OF 4TH, 5TH AND 6TH FLOORS IN THE PLAINT O.S.NO.6008/2018 OF THE SCHEDULE PREMISES IS DEMOLISHED BY PASSING SUITABLE ORDER AND TO ENSURE THAT THE ORDER OF INJUNCTION BEING

¶21

¶22

GRANTED BY THE COURT BELOW IN THE SUIT O.S.NO.6008/2018 DATED 13.11.2018 IS IMPLEMENTED BY VIRTUE OF STATUTORY OBLIGATION AND IMPLEMENTATION AND ETC.,

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioners claim to be the neighbors of respondent Nos.3 and 4, who are alleged to have undertaken certain construction, contrary to the building byelaws of the BBMP.

¶26

The parties to the lis have approached the

¶27

civil Court and certain orders are passed by the civil Court against respondent Nos.3 and 4 not to put up any further construction. The allegation is, further construction is put up despite the orders passed by the civil Court and have sought initiation of suo - moto contempt proceedings against respondent Nos.3 and 4. Remedy for the petitioners on this score lies elsewhere.

¶28

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for respondent

¶30

Nos.3 and 4 submit that pursuant to the compliant registered by the petitioners, the BBMP issues a notice under Section 308 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 ('the Act' for short) on 18.07.2018 and notices under Sections 321(1) and 321(2) on 23.07.22018 and have later issued a confirmatory order under Section 321(3) of the Act on 01.08.2018.

¶31

Challenging all these, respondent Nos.3 and 4 have approached the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.807/2018, wherein the Tribunal has granted an interim order.

¶32

Since the notices are issued and the proceedings are pending before the Tribunal, I deem it appropriate to dispose the writ petition with a direction to the Tribunal to dispose the Appeal that is pending

¶33

¶34

before it as expeditiously as possible at any rate within six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶35

The petitioner is at liberty to implead himself

¶36

into those proceedings pending before the Tribunal, which had emanated pursuant to the complaint registered by the petitioners.

¶37

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed.

¶38

In view of the disposal of the main petition, pending I.As also stand disposed.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

L Anand Kumar v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

L Anand Kumar v. the Commissioner

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

Satish R Shet Vs State of Karnataka by

S R Patalappa Vs the State by

Smt Kursheed Unnisa Vs the State of Karnataka

Mohammed Ilyas Ahmed Vs Deputy Commissioner

Smt Qurrath Ravoof Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Smt. B. Shyamala @ K.N. Shyamala Vs the Commissioner