Writ petition challenging confirmation order under Section 321(3) KMCA 1976. Court quashed order for violation of natural justice and preserved liberty for BBMP to take action under Section 248 BBMP Act 2020.
Petition allowed; impugned order and confirmation order quashed; liberty reserved for BBMP.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
W.P.NO.23479 OF 2015 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN :
(AMENDED AS PER THE ORDER DATED 05.01.2022)
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.PUTHIGE R.RAMESH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT.LAKSHMI S.HOLLA, ADVOCATE)
AND :
2
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. N.ANITHA, HCGP FOR R1, SRI. PAVAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. H.DEVENDRAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 10.12.2014 IN APPEAL NO. 320/2007 OF THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE VIDE ANN-A AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP' THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
The subject property was conveyed in favour of Raghurama Hande by registered sale deed dated 15.05.1984 executed by Bangalore Development Authority, who in turn conveyed it to Suresh Bhosle by executing a registered sale deed dated 12.06.1984. Thereafter, he constructed ground and first floor on the subject land by obtaining permission from the respondent-BBMP.
3
4
of natural justice. He further submits that the construction was put up before commencement of the building Bye-Laws 2003 and in the confirmation order there is no reference to the violation made under the said Bye-Laws or Bye-Laws which were prevailing when the construction was put up.
commencement of the building Bye-Laws 2003. The plan was sanctioned in the year 1995 and the provisional order was
5
passed on 16.10.2006 after 11 years from the date of construction was completed. The respondent-BBMP has not placed on record any material to substantiate display that the spot inspection was conducted in the presence of the erstwhile owner of the property. Hence, the impugned order passed under Section 321(3) of the Act was in violation of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
6
sanctioned building plan as specified under Section 248 of the BBMP Act 2020.
Sd/JUDGE
JY
2 issues framed by the court
Whether confirmation order under Section 321(3) KMCA 1976 violated principles of natural justice due to lack of proper notice.
Whether impugned order of Karnataka Appellate Tribunal requires interference and quashing by this Court.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
K.A. Swathi
Veena Kesarle
The State of Karnataka
Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike
Hemant Chandangouadar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
