Disposed

M/S. Gm Infinite Dwelling (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC2 Feb 2022WP/334/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a direction to stop alleged illegal construction by the fourth respondent. The court observed that the competent authority had already issued a notice under Section 313 of the BBMP Act, rendering the petition no longer sustainable, and disposed of the matter by reserving liberty to the respondent.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of. Liberty reserved to respondent No.4 to reply to notice; respondent No.3 to pass further orders.

M/S. Gm Infinite Dwelling (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs the… — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.334/2022 (LB-BMP)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M/S. GM INFINITE DWELLING (INDIA) PVT. LTD. A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT (1956/2013) NO.6, G M PEARL, IST STAGE, IST PHASE, BTM LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560068 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. GULAM MUSTAFA ... PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI K.N.PHANINDRA, SR. ADV. FOR SMT. RAMA R. IYER, ADV.)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP) HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560002.

¶11

THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER MAHADEVAPURA ZONE, WHITE FIELD MAIN ROAD, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, MAHADEVAPURA, BENGALURU-560048.

¶12

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BELLANDUR, BENGALURU-560103.

¶13

M/S. N. D. DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT NO.398, IST FLOOR, 7TH CROSS,

¶14

¶15

MICO LAYOUT, BTM 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560076. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR. M. K. K. NAYEEM DURANI ... RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI H.DEVENDRAPPA, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3; SRI VIVEK REDDY, SR. ADV. FOR SRI S.ISMAIL ZABIULLA, ADV. FOR R4)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE FIRST RESPONDENTS NOS.1, 2 AND 3 TO ALLOW STOP THE CONSTRUCTION BEING CARRIED OUT BY THE R-4 WITHOUT APPROVED PLAN OR PERMISSION FROM THE R-1 HEREIN BEING THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY BY THE R-4 OR TO TAKE UP ANY CONSTRUCTION IN THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY ONLY AFTER OBTAINING NECESSARY APPROVED PLANS AS THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY VALID AND APPROVED PLAN AS ALSO A VALID TITLE TO THE PROPERTY, ETC.

¶18

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

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This writ petition is filed seeking for a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to stop the alleged illegal construction being put up by the fourth respondent.

¶21

This Court by order dated 13.01.2022 directed the

¶22

third respondent to visit the schedule property and submit a report as to whether respondent No.4 is putting up any construction without obtaining a sanction plan. In the light of the order passed by this court, the third respondent has submitted a Compliance Report stating that the

¶23

¶24

construction put up by the fourth respondent is without obtaining a sanction plan and accordingly, a notice has been issued to the fourth respondent not to proceed with further construction and also the third respondent has issued a notice under Section 313 of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act 2020 (for brevity "the BBMP Act").

¶25

Sri.Vivek Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.4 submits that the fourth respondent is constructing a temporary shed for security purposes in terms of the order passed in the arbitration proceedings and the same does not require any permission from the B.B.M.P.

¶26

In view of the notice issued under Section 313 of the BBMP Act, the relief sought for in this writ petition does not survive for consideration.

¶27

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. Liberty is reserved with the fourth respondent to submit a reply to the notice dated 27.01.2022 issued by the third respondent under Section 313 of the BBMP Act at

¶28

¶29

Annexure-R9 and if such reply is submitted by the fourth respondent within four weeks from today, the respondent No.3 shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶30

All contentions are kept open.

¶31

The issue with regard to locus standi of the petitioner

¶32

to maintain the writ petition in the subsequent proceedings

¶33

is kept open.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

KNM/-

M/S. Gm Infinite Dwelling (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Gm Infinite Dwelling (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. the 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

Sri Subramani Vs the State by Chikkaballapura Police Station

Shri H R Satishchandra Vs State of Karnataka

Sri C R Chandran Vs Smt H K Sharadamba

Smt J Jayamma Vs the Zilla Panchayath

Sri Yogesh M S Vs State by Its

The Teachers Colony Residents Association Vs the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike