Allowed

Sri K C Sudarshan v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC3 Nov 2022WP/12429/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition challenging the inaction of authorities regarding a delayed representation for extending a sanctioned construction plan. The court, recognizing the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic and the petitioner's timely start of construction before expiry, allowed the petition directing authorities to consider the representation for an extension.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed. Respondents directed to consider the representation filed by the petitioner at Annexure-E for granting extension of the period of sanctioned plan.

Sri K C Sudarshan Vs the Commissioner — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.12429 OF 2022 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. K.C. SUDARSHAN S/O LATE CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.680, 4^TH BLOCK 15^TH CROSS, HMT LAYOUT VIDYARANYAPURA BANGALORE-560 097.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. RAGHUNATH C.M., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE HUDSON CIRCLE BENGALURU-560 001.

¶13

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE YELAHANKA DIVISION BYATARAYANAPURA BANGALORE-560 097.

¶14

¶15

OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER YELAHANKA ZONE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BANGALORE-560 097.

¶16

... RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. VAIBHAV R.M., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)

¶18

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER DATED 01.12.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-E BY EXTENDING THE TIME FOR COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION OF COMMERCIAL CUM HOSTEL BUILDING OVER THE AFORESAID PROPERTY.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Present petition is filed by the petitioner seeking

¶22

following relief;

¶23

"Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to consider the representation made by the petitioner dated 01.12.2021 vide Annexure-D by extending the time for completion of construction of commercial cum Hostel building over the aforesaid property and to pass such other order/s."

¶24

¶25

It is the case of the petitioner that he had applied and obtained sanctioned plan for the purpose

¶26

of construction of commercial complex as per Annexure-D. The sanctioned plan was issued on 07.06.2018 which was valid from 21.06.2018 to 20.06.2020.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was not able to take up construction process due to intervening circumstances including Covid-19 pandemic, resulting in expiry of the period of 2 years of the sanctioned plan. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation as per Annexure-E seeking extension of period of sanctioned plan. The application of the petitioner's has neither been considered nor rejected till date, constraining the petitioner to approach this Court.

¶28

¶29

Learned counsel for the respondents on

¶30

the other hand submits that the building licence at Annexure-D was admittedly issued for a period of 2 years commencing from 21.06.2018. That the Covid19 pandemic started only at the end of year 2019 and there is nothing on record to show petitioner had made any attempt to put up construction prior to Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, he submits reasons assigned by the petitioner cannot be accepted. Hence, sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the parties and

¶32

perused the records.

¶33

It is not in dispute that the petitioner was issued with a sanctioned plan as per Annexure-D which was valid from 21.06.2018 to 20.06.2020. It is of common knowledge that the Covid-19 pandemic hit at the end of the year 2019 and continued thereafter

¶34

¶35

bringing all activities particularly construction activities to a grinding halt. It is not disputed by the respondents that the petitioner was entitled to commence the construction at any time between 21.06.2018 to 20.06.2020. In other words, the petitioner could have commenced the construction just before the expiry of the period. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents that petitioner would have been entitled for extension of the licence period if he had commenced the construction at any date prior to the expiry of the licence period.

¶36

The reasons assigned by the petitioner for not commencing the construction is acceptable as the Covid-19 pandemic was beyond his reasonable control. Besides the construction activities commenced /resumed instantaneously. Since the petitioner was entitled for extension of the period as he commenced

¶37

¶38

the construction before expiry period, this court is of the considered view that the prayer of the petitioner requires to be considered.

¶39

In that view of the matter, considering the

¶40

peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to consider the representation filed by the petitioner at Annexure-E for granting extension of the period of sanctioned plan.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

Sri K C Sudarshan v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K C Sudarshan 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

Smt Rathnamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. N.Krishnaswamy Iyengar Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Raghvendra R Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Vedic Lore Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagar Palike

Smt. B v Venkatalakshmamma Vs the Commissioner

Smt Sukrutha v Kumar Vs Deputy Commissioner