Disposed

Sri Vijay Kumar Mahipal @ Vijay Kumar v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC26 May 2022WP/15354/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition challenging an order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The court noted that the petitioner had removed most temporary structures as per an undertaking given in a previous order, allowing the writ petition to be disposed without merits.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands disposed; consequential I.A. also disposed.

Sri Vijay Kumar Mahipal @ Vijay Kumar Vs the… — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF MAY, 2022 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.15354 OF 2019 (LB-BMP)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI VIJAY KUMAR MAHIPAL @ VIJAY KUMAR S/O SRI.KHYALIRAM CHABILDASS MAHIPAL AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS OCC: BUSINESSMAN OFFICE AT SITE NO.4 SY.NO.14/7, K.NO.21 SAVITHRI ESTATE K.H.RANGANATHA COLONY DEVATIGE RAMANAHALLI MYSURU ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 026.

¶7

... PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI NARASIMHARAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE COMMISSIONER BBMP, N.R.SQUARE CORPORATION CIRCLE BENGALURU – 560 002.

¶11

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER GALI ANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE SUB-DIVISION, BBMP, BASAVESHWARA LAYOUT,

¶12

¶13

3^RD CROSS, KAILASHWARA TEMPLE, ATTIGUPPE, BENGALURU – 560 026.

¶14

... RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI AMIT DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 28.02.2019 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KAT IN APPEAL NO.839/2018 AS PER ANENXURE-A AND ETC.,

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner had called in question the order passed by

¶20

the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.839/2018 dated 28.02.2019.

¶21

Heard Sri.Narasimharaju, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri.Amit Deshpande, learned counsel for respondents.

¶22

This Court, after hearing the parties and on admitted facts, had passed the following order on 22.12.2021:

¶23

¶24

“In terms of the order dated 13.12.2021 and 17.12.2021, the petitioner has filed an affidavit that he is running the business in the temporary structure business of storing and dealing in metal sheets in the property, which according to him, is a temporary structure and not a permanent structure. He has undertaken that he would remove the temporary structure within 3 months from 22.12.2021, but has ingeniously stated that till the respondents -BBMP would issue a licence and plan to put up a permanent structure or temporary structure in accordance with law, he will not vacate the premises.

¶25

The affidavit of undertaking is placed on record.

¶26

The petitioner is directed to vacate the premises on or before 01.03.2022. Obtaining of license or plan from the respondents - BBMP to put up any other structure, cannot be taken as a reason not to vacate the premises and bring down the temporary structure.

¶27

Petitioner shall abide by the undertaking and vacate the premises as indicated.

¶28

Heard-in-part.

¶29

List the matter on 03.03.2022 for 'Further Hearing'.”

¶30

In terms of the order passed and affidavit filed by the petitioner, subsequent inspections of the property have taken place on the directions of this Court. Finally, it is submitted that except a washroom in the property all other temporary

¶31

¶32

structures are removed, which is endorsed by the learned counsel appearing for the BBMP.

¶33

It is needless to observe that the petitioner shall be bound by the affidavit dated 24.03.2022 and subsequent memo filed before this Court. The respondent Corporation is at liberty to initiate such action, only if the petitioner is found to be deviating from the affidavit of undertaking filed before this Court.

¶34

With the aforesaid observations, the Writ Petition stands disposed.

¶35

Consequently, I.A.No.2/2019 also stands disposed.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

bkp CT:MJ

Sri Vijay Kumar Mahipal @ Vijay Kumar v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Vijay Kumar Mahipal @ Vijay 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

Divya Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Richa Mishra Vs the Commissioner of Police

Vikram Vincent Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S R v Constructions Vs Sri Narayan Reddy v

M/S R v Constructions Vs Srinarayana Reddy v

Sri Himanshu Gupta Vs v Narayana Reddy