Disposed

Sri N Rajendra v. the Chief Secretary

Karnataka HC6 Sept 2022WP/3069/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, owners of plots challenged the maintenance arrangements of an unauthorised layout. The High Court held that without prior sanction for paragraph layout formation, representations for maintenance could not be considered. It stayed precipitate action under the show cause notice pending disposal of objections.

What did the court decide?

Show cause notice dated 06.03.2019 stayed pending disposal of objections to it if filed within two weeks.

Sri N Rajendra Vs the Chief Secretary — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO.3069/2020 (LB-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI N RAJENDRA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O K NAGARAJ, R/O NO.17, RAINBOW DRIVE LAYOTU SARJAPURA ROAD, CARMELARAM POST, BANGALORE-560 035.

¶8

SRI S.G. MADHUSUDAN AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O B.N. GOPALAKRISHNA R/O NO.242, RAINBOW DRIVE LAYOUT SARJAPURA ROAD, CARMELARAM POST BANGALORE-560 035.

¶9

SRI J N KINI AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, S/O G.G. KINI R/O NO.393, RAINBOW DRIVE LAYOUT SARJAPRUA ROAD, CARMELARAM POST BANGALORE-560 035.

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI BALAGANGADHAR G.S., ADVOCATE)

¶12

¶13

AND:
1.	THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.
2.	ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.
3.	THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK, BANGALORE-560 002.
4.	THE COMMISSIONER BBMP, HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 002.
5.	HALANAYAKANAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY PDO, VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE-560 001.
6.	RAINBOW DRIVE LAYOUT PLOT OWNERS ASSOCIATION, (RBD POA), REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, RAINBOW LAYOUT, SARJAPURA, BANGALORE-560 035.
7.	FERNS BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS (FBD) NO.682, "TIARA, 9TH "A" MAIN BINNAMANGALA, INDIRANAGARA 1ST STAGE BANGALORE-560 038. …RESPONDENTS

¶14

¶15

(BY SRI SRINIVAS GOWDA K., AGA FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R-3; SRI S. AMIT DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-4; SRI M.S. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R-5; SRI PRADEEP S. SAWKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-6; SRI S. SHIVANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-7)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO 5 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C DATED 29.12.2018, ANNEXURE-C1 DATED 29.12.2018, ANNEXURE-C2 DATED 02.01.2019, ANNEXURE-C3 DATED 29.12.2018, ANNEXURE-D DATED 17.01.2019, ANNEXURE-D1 DATED 17.01.2019, ANNEXURE-D2 DATED 17.01.2019, ANNEXURE-D3 DATED 17.01.2019, ANNEXURE-E DATED 08.02.2019, ANNEXURE-E1 DATED 08.02.2019, ANNEXURE-E2 DATED 08.02.2019, ANNEXURE-E3 DATED 08.02.2019 AND SUBSEQUENT REPRESENTATIONS/FOLLOW UPS AND REMINDERS GIVEN TO THE R-1 TO 5 AND TO CONSIDER THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONERS AND TO TAKE SUITABLE ACTION IN THIS REGARD.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

Petitioners are the owners of the plots situated at Rainbow Drive Layout, Sarjapura Road, Bangalore which is maintained by the respondent No.6-Association. The petitioners submitted representations with the respondents No.1 and 4 for taking over the maintenance of the layout and also the C.A., sites as

¶20

¶21

specified under Section 32(7) of the BDA Act. The grievance of the petitioners is that the said representations have not been considered even to this day.

¶22

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 submits that the layout formed comes within the jurisdiction of Bangalore Development Authority and the said layout is formed without obtaining prior sanction as specified under Section 17 of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act 1961, hence, the representations submitted by the petitioners cannot be considered. He further submits that the show cause notice under Section 17(4) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, read with Section 32 (7) and (9) of the BDA Act, 1976 is issued calling upon the respondent No.7 as to why the unauthorised layout should not be removed. Hence, he submits that the relief sought for in this writ petition cannot be considered.

¶23

I have examined the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶24

¶25

Petitioners have not produced any document to substantiate their claim that the layout was formed by obtaining prior sanction as specified under Section 17 of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961. The respondent-BDA has issued show cause notice to the respondent No.8, to stop the unauthorised work relating to the layout otherwise action will be taken as specified under Section 17(4) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961. Hence, the representation submitted by the petitioners in the absence of non performance of the statutory duty cannot be considered by the respondentAuthorities.

¶26

Therefore, it is expedient to dispose of the writ petition reserving liberty to the petitioners to file objections to the show cause notice dated 6.3.2019 issued by the respondent No.3 at Annexure-F, and if such objections are submitted by the petitioners within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, the respondent-BDA to consider the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Till the consideration of the objections to be submitted by the petitioners

¶27

¶28

no precipitate action will be taken in terms of the show cause notice dated 6.3.2019 at Annexure-F. The respondents No.6 and 7 are also granted with liberty to submit their objections to the

¶29

show cause notice.

¶30

Sd/JUDGE

¶31

Sri N Rajendra v. the Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri N Rajendra v. the Chief Secretary

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 Santosh Kumar Vs the Zonal Joint Commissioner (South)

The Primary Agricultural Credit Co. Operative Society Ltd., Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Syed Hameedulla Hassan Vs Sri Bheemaiah

R Mayanna Vs the State of Karnataka

T M Rajeshwari Pandit Vs State of Karnataka

Sri K a Lathif Vs State of Karnataka