Allowed

Sri H R Divakar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Feb 2022WP/1291/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a demand notice requiring relinquishment of land earmarked as a road. The Court directed quashing of the notice and ordered the BBMP to process the building plan application within two months in alignment with a coordinate bench.

What did the court decide?

Impugned demand notice dated 8.8.2019 quashed. BBMP directed to process building plan application within two months.

Sri H R Divakar Vs the State of Karnataka — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 07^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.1291 OF 2022 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI H R DIVAKAR, S/O LATE H G RAGHU RAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT NO 144, 2ND CROSS, J R LAYOUT, HARALURU, BENGALURU - 560102. ...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI KRISHNA MURTHY N, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, 4TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA,

¶12

DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560001

¶13

REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANGARA PALIKE N R SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560002,

¶15

REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶16

THE ASSISANT DIRECTOR

¶17

OF TOWN PLANNING, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, MAHAVEVAPURA ZONE,

¶18

RHB COLONY, WHITEFILED MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560048.

¶19

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, (LAND ACQUSTION AND TDR)

¶20

¶21

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, FIRST FLOOR, ANNEX BUILDING 3, CENRAL OFFICER, NR SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002.

¶22

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (T.D.R) BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, FIRST FLOOR, ANNEX BUIDLING -3 CENTRAL OFFICER, N R SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002. ...RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI H DEVENDRAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2, SRI NITHYANANDA K.R, AGA FOR R1 )

¶24

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD. 08.08.2019 VIDE ANNX-E PASSED BY THE R-4. DIRECT THE R-3 AND 4 TO ISSUE THE SANCTION PLAN FOR CONSTRUCTION BUILDING WITHOUT INSISTING TO EXECUTE RELINQUISH DEED IN RESPECT OF 30.49 MTS X 6.00 MTS IN TOTAL AN AREA OF 182.94.

¶26

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

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

By the impugned communication dated 8.8.2019, the petitioner is called upon to relinquish the land earmarked as road in the revised Master Plan, 2015 as a condition precedent for process of application submitted for sanctioning of building plan in respect of property bearing Sy.No.98/2 measuring 0.05 guntas situated at Haralur Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk. The issue involved in this writ petition was examined by

¶29

¶30

coordinate Bench of this Court in WP No.9408/2020 and connected matters (DD 17.1.2022). Hence, this writ petition requires to be disposed of in terms of the order passed in the said writ petitions. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

i) Writ petition is allowed.

¶33

ii) The impugned demand notice dated 8.8.2019 issued

¶34

by the 3rd respondent vide Annexure-E is hereby quashed.

¶35

iii) The respondent - BBMP is directed to process the application submitted by the petitioner for sanctioning the building plan and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

BKM

Sri H R Divakar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri H R Divakar v. the State of Karnataka

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

M/S Padmamba Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Veeresh Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Manjula Vs the Commissioner

Sri.v.Jayappa Vs the Commissioner

Smt Muthulakshmi Pitchammal Vs the Commissioner

M/S Neelanjana Enterprises Vs the Principal Secretary to the