Allowed

Sri Krishnappa v. the Bhruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Karnataka HC10 Jun 2022WP/21688/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the confirmation order under Section 321(3) of the KMC Act challenging pending civil suits and lack of notice to petitioners. The matter was remanded to the Assistant Executive Engineer with directions to verify the age of construction and reconsider litigations.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions allowed; impugned order under Section 321(3) KMC Act quashed; matter remanded to R-2 for spot verification and fresh orders after hearing all parties.

Sri Krishnappa Vs the Bhruhat Bangalore… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.NATARAJ

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.21688 OF 2017 (LB - BMP) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.21689 OF 2017 (LB - BMP) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.21690 OF 2017 (LB - BMP)

¶7

IN W.P.No.21688/2017

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. KRISHNAPPA, S/O CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.147, SUGAMA LAYOUT, 3^RD CROSS, NYANAPPANAHALLI, BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE – 560 100.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI.RAJANNA C., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE BHRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, N.R.ROAD, HUDSON CIRCLE, CORPORATION CIRCLE, BANGALORE – 560 002.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ARAKERE SUB-DIVISION, BBMP, BANGALORE – 560 097.

¶15

¶16

SRI. MUDDAPPA, S/O MUDDUMARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶17

SRI. RAJU, S/O MUDDUMARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶18

SRI. JAYARAM, S/O MUDDUMARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶19

SRI. KRISHNAPPA, S/O MUDDUMARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶20

SMT. RAJAMMA, D/O MUDDUMARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶21

THE RESPONDENTS NO.3 TO 7 ARE ALL RESIDING AT NO.2/4, NYANAPPANAHALLI, BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE – 560 068.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI.K.V.MOHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI.S.V.ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R3 – R7)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE R-2 IN REGARD TO THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 DATED 9.5.2017 AS FOUND AT ANNEXURE - J AND QUASH THE SAME INSOFAR AS THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER DESCRIBED IN THE SCHEDULE HEREUNDER; QUASH THE PROVISIONAL ORDER DATED 20.08.2016 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE - G IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND ETC.,

IN W.P.No.21689/2017

BETWEEN:

SMT. SUNITHA, W/O CHIKKEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O NYANAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, BANGALORE – 560 068.

¶29

…PETITIONER

¶30

(BY SRI.RAJANNA C., ADVOCATE)

¶31

AND:

¶32

THE BHRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, N.R.ROAD, HUDSON CIRCLE, CORPORATION CIRCLE, BANGALORE – 560 002.

¶33

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ARAKERE SUB-DIVISION, BANGALORE – 560 097.

¶34

SRI. MUDDAPPA, S/O MUDDUMARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶35

SRI. RAJU, S/O MUDDUMARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶36

SRI. JAYARAM, S/O MUDDUMARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶37

SRI. KRISHNAPPA, S/O MUDDUMARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶38

¶39

SMT. RAJAMMA, D/O MUDDUMARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶40

THE RESPONDENTS NO.3 TO 7 ARE ALL RESIDING AT NO.2/4, NYANAPPANAHALLI, BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE – 560 068.

¶41

…RESPONDENTS

¶42

(BY SRI.K.V.MOHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI.S.V.ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R3 – R7)

IN W.P.No.21690/2017

BETWEEN:

SRI. MARAPPA, S/O DANDA MARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NO.7, NYANAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, MUTHURAYA SWAMY LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 068.

¶47

…PETITIONER

¶48

(BY SRI.RAJANNA C., ADVOCATE)

¶49

AND:

¶50

1. THE BHRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,

¶51

¶52

	REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, N.R.ROAD, HUDSON CIRCLE, CORPORATION CIRCLE, BANGALORE – 560 002.
2.	THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ARAKERE SUB-DIVISION, BBMP, BANGALORE – 560 097.
3.	SRI. MUDDAPPA, S/O MUDDUMARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
4.	SRI. RAJU, S/O MUDDUMARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
5.	SRI. JAYARAM, S/O MUDDUMARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
6.	SRI. KRISHNAPPA, S/O MUDDUMARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
7.	SMT. RAJAMMA, D/O MUDDUMARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
	THE RESPONDENTS NO.3 TO 7 ARE ALL RESIDING AT NO.2/4, NYANAPPANAHALLI, BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE – 560 068. …RESPONDENTS

¶53

(BY SRI.K.V.MOHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI.S.V.ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R3 – R7)

¶54

¶55

¶56

PETITIONER DESCRIBED IN THE SCHEDULE HEREUNDER; QUASH THE PROVISIONAL ORDER DATED 09.05.2017 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE - L IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND ETC.,

¶57

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

¶58

ORDER

¶59

In all these petitions, the petitioners have challenged the order of confirmation issued by the respondent No.2 under Section 321(3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KMC Act' for short).

¶60

The petitioners in all these writ petitions claim

¶61

to be the owners of certain properties lying within Nyanappana Halli, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru - 560 068 and that there is on going dispute between the petitioners and the private respondents herein in O.S.Nos.958/2015, 960/2015 and 10082/2014. It is also contended that the private respondents herein have also filed suits against the petitioners for declaration of title and consequential reliefs. In the meanwhile, the petitioners claim that the private respondents herein colluding with respondent No.2 had

¶62

¶63

managed to initiate proceedings under Section 321(1) of the KMC Act, which was followed by a confirmation order under Section 321(3) of the KMC Act. The petitioners have therefore filed these writ petitions challenging the said order.

¶64

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the appeal remedy under Section 444 of the KMC Act, is not efficacious since the proceeding is initiated by the respondent No.2 against the private respondents and not against the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners cannot effectively challenge the order before the Tribunal. He contends that the construction in the properties were put up long back prior to the area being included within the limits of the Municipal Corporation and therefore, respondent No.2 was not justified in passing the impugned order. He also contended that the petitioner has not put up any fresh construction and that the proceedings are orchestrated by the respondent No.2 at the instance of the private respondents.

¶65

¶66

Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the proceedings against the building in question was initiated based on the complaint lodged by the private respondents herein and that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not committed any illegality in passing the confirmation order.

¶67

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 7 on the other hand submitted that the property which the petitioners are claiming, belong to the respondent Nos.3 to 7 in all these writ petitions. He further contends that the petitioners have no locus-standi to challenge the order of confirmation issued.

¶68

The petitioners and the respondent Nos.3 to 7

¶69

in all these petitions, do not dispute the fact that there are proceedings pending between them before the Civil Court that are awaiting adjudication. The respondent Nos.3 to 7 therefore could not have strong-armed the petitioners by lodging complaints with respondent No.2 to take action under Section 321 of the KMC Act. This was indeed an

¶70

¶71

abuse of the official machinery for demolition of the building existing on the properties.

¶72

In that view of the matter, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, no purpose will be served in relegating the petitioners to remedy of an appeal. Since the impugned order is passed without notifying the petitioners, it is appropriate that the impugned orders are quashed and the matters be restored on the file of the respondent No.2, who shall hear out the petitioners as well as the respondent Nos.3 to 7 and pass appropriate orders.

¶73

It is needless to mention that the respondent No.2 while doing so shall visit the property and make an assessment whether the construction put up was prior to or subsequent to the area coming within the limits of Municipal Corporation and thereafter pass the appropriate orders. He shall also consider the litigations between the parties and whether his office is misused by the private

¶74

¶75

respondents herein to ensure demolition of the building and if yes, to drop the proceedings.

¶76

In that view of the matter, the writ petitions

¶77

are allowed and the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 under Section 321(3) of the KMC Act is quashed.

¶78

The respondent No.2 is directed to hear the petitioners as well as the respondent Nos.3 to 7 and pass appropriate orders after visiting the spot and after making an assessment of the construction existed on the property in question.

¶79

The petitioners as well as the private respondents shall appear before the respondent No.2 on 30.06.2022 at 11.00 am.

¶80

Sd/JUDGE

¶81

NR/-

Sri Krishnappa v. the Bhruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Krishnappa v. the Bhruhat Bangalore 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

Sri.Chandrashekar Vs Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Sri Rajanna N Vs Mandur Grama Panchayath

T N Rajegowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Sadananda Vs the Commissioner

Smt Sunitha Vs the Bhruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Sri Marappa Vs the Bhruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike