Disposed

L Govindraj v. the Chief Commissioner

Karnataka HC14 Feb 2022WP/2353/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition seeking direction to demolish illegal constructions. The court noted that action had been initiated under the BBMP Act against the occupants, rendering the petition redundant. It directed completion of proceedings within three months and reserved liberty to challenge subsequent orders.

What did the court decide?

Direct the respondent-BBMP to conclude proceedings under Section 248 within three months; dismiss the petition as relief does not survive.

L Govindraj Vs the Chief Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.2353 OF 2022 (LB-BMP)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

L. GOVINDRAJ, S/O LATE LAXMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, NO.68 11^TH CROSS, INDIRANAGAR 1^ST STAGE, BANGALORE-560 038. (BY SRI. ARUN.G, ADVOCATE)

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER, BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, CORPORATION OFFICES, N. R. SQUARE, BANGALORE-560 002.

¶11

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BURHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, JEEVAN BHEEMA NAGAR SUB-DIVISION, INDIRANAGAR 1ST STAGE,

¶12

BANGALORE-560 038.

¶13

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING (EAST), BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, CORPORATION OFFICES, N. R. SQUARE, BANGALORE-560 002

¶14

¶15

SUMITHA GOPALAKRISHNA WASTER, W/O GOPALAKRISHNA WATER, AGE MAJOR, NO.65 11^TH CROSS

¶16

INDIRANAGAR I STAGE, BANGALORE-560 038

¶17

GOPALAKRISHNA WASTER

¶18

AGE MAJOR NO.65, 11^TH CROSS INDIRANAGAR, I STAGE, BANGALORE-560038

¶19

... RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. K.N.PUTTEGOWDA ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE SANCTIONED PLAN DATED 05.11.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT. (ANNEXURE-G) AND ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

This petition is filed seeking for direction to

¶25

respondent nos.1 and 2 to demolish illegal construction put up on the schedule property.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for respondent-BBMP

¶27

has submitted the report stating that appropriate action is

¶28

taken against the respondent Nos.4 and 5 for having put up illegal construction on schedule property by issuing notice

¶29

¶30

and order under Section 248(2) and 248(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020. In view of the steps taken by respondent-BBMP, the relief sought for in this writ petition does not survive for consideration.

¶31

It is made clear that respondent-BBMP shall conclude proceeding under Section 248 of the BBMP Act, 2020 within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶32

Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file an application for impleading in accordance with law, in proceeding if initiated by respondent Nos.4 and 5 challenging the order passed under Section 248 of BBMP Act.

¶33

All contentions are kept open including the locus-standi of the petitioner to maintain an application for impleading or challenge subsequent proceeding.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

L Govindraj v. the Chief Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

L Govindraj v. the Chief 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

B v Shivashankar Vs Tahsildar

S. Parathasarathi Vs Assistant Revenue Officer

Dakshina Kannada Zilla Beedibadi Vyaparasthra Shreyobhivrudhi Sangha (R) Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Shruthi Y Vs the Commissioner

G Aswathamma Vs State of Karnataka

M Srinivas Vs the Executive Engineer