Disposed

Sri G Ranganath @ Sri Ranganatham v. the Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Karnataka HC4 Feb 2022WP/19714/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition directing BBMP to act against unauthorized construction by Respondents 4 and 5. The Court noted BBMP had already initiated proceedings under Section 248(1), thus issuing no direction, but directed BBMP to conclude proceedings within three months.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed; BBMP directed to conclude proceedings within three months.

Sri G Ranganath @ Sri Ranganatham Vs the Bruhath… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO.19714/2021(LB-BMP)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI G. RANGANATH @ SRI RANGANATHAM, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O LATE RAMAIAH, R/AT NO.1297/29/3, KEREKODI ROAD, YELAHANKA OLD TOWN, BENGALURU – 560 064.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI C SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, J.C.ROAD, KITTUR RANI CHANNAMMA CIRCLE, BENGALURU – 560 002.

¶12

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, YELAHANKA RANGE, BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BENGALURU – 560 064.

¶13

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER,

¶14

¶15

BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BYATARAYANAPURA, BENGALURU – 560 092.

¶16

SRI R SHIVA PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O. N. RAMAKRISHNA, R/AT NO.59, 4^TH MAIN ROAD, SOCIETY COLONY, ADUGODI, BENGALURU – 560 030.

¶17

SMT. S. JAYANTHI, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, W/O. SRI R. SHIVA PRAKASH, R/AT NO.59, 4^TH MAIN ROAD, SOCIETY COLONY, ADUGODI, BENGALURU – 560 030.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI MANJUNATH N.BYRAREDDY, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3; SRI S GANGADHAR AITHAL, ADV. FOR R4 AND R5)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO 3 TO TAKE ACTION REGARDING UNAUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION BEING CARRIED ON BY VIOLATING BUILDING BYE LAWS ON THE PETITION SCHEDULE PROPERTY BY TAKING PROMPT AND URGENT ACTION TO PREVENT THE SAME BHEING COMPLETED BY GIVING EFFECT TO THE REPRESENTATION DATED 04.12.2020, MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO R-1 TO 3 VIDE ANNX-D.

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

This writ petition is filed seeking for a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to take action against respondent Nos.4 and 5 for having put up construction in violation of the building bye laws.

¶25

Learned counsel for respondent/Bruhath

¶26

Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (“BBMP”) filed statement of objections enclosing copy of the notices under Section 248(1) of the Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 (“the Act” for short) calling upon respondent Nos.4 and 5 to show cause as to why action should not be taken for having put up construction in violation of the sanctioned building plan.

¶27

The respondents/BBMP having initiated

¶28

proceedings against respondent Nos.4 and 5 for having put up illegal construction, the relief sought for in this writ petition does not call for interference. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of .

¶29

¶30

Respondents/BBMP to conclude the proceedings

¶31

initiated under Section 248 (1) of the said Act within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of

¶32

this order.

¶33

Sd/JUDGE

¶34

Sri G Ranganath @ Sri Ranganatham v. the Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri G Ranganath @ Sri Ranganatham v. the Bruhath 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

Srinivasa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Nilakanta T Y Vs the State of Karnataka

Amit Kumar Shetty Vs State of Karnataka by

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

Sri. Veeresh Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Manjula Vs the Commissioner