Petitioner sought direction to respondents to act against illegal construction. Court held prior communication regarding property dispute was not challenged, rendering subsequent writ petition not maintainable. Petition dismissed.
No relief granted; writ petition dismissed.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION No.7484 OF 2016(LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
SMT. DR. VARALAKSHMI D/O K GOVINDAPPA W/O ANUPAMA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/A NO.58, VENKATARAMA LAYOUT MARUTHI SEVA NAGAR BANGALORE-560023.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MAHESH A S., ADV.)
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.PAVAN KUMAR, ADV. FOR SRI. H.DEVENDRAPPA, ADV.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT R-1 AND 2 TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST THE PERSONS CONSTRUCTED THE BUILDING UNAUTHORISELY ON SITE NO.46, KHATHA NO.43/7/46 SITUATED AT VARANASHI WARD NO.54, BBMP, BANGALORE, PURSUANT AN ORDER
2
PASSED IN W.P.36851/2014 DATED 06.08.2014 BY HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT ANNEX-B AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PREILIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner had submitted a representation to
the respondent / BBMP to take action against one Sri K.C.Beerappa for putting up illegal construction on
the property bearing Sy.No.46 situated at Varanashi. Since the representation was not considered by the respondent / BBMP, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.36851/2014 for a direction to the respondent
/ BBMP to consider the said representation.
disposed of the said writ petition, directing respondent / BBMP to consider the representation dated 03.06.2014 submitted by the petitioner. In pursuance of the order dated 06.08.2014, the petitioner submitted a representation afresh to take appropriate action against the person, who is alleged to have put
3
up illegal construction. Since the representation is not
considered, the present writ petition is filed.
submits that Annexure-R1 produced along with statement of objections clearly indicates that in pursuance to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.36851/2014, a communication dated 28.02.2015 is issued stating that there is a dispute with regard to the identity of the subject property and as such, the representation submitted by the petitioner cannot be considered. Hence, he submits that the direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.36851/2014 has been complied with and the petition which is filed suppressing the same is not be maintainable.
4
communication dated 28.02.2015 stating that the petitioner’s representation for removing the illegal construction put up in the subject property cannot be construed as there is a dispute with regard to the identity of the subject property. The said communication has not been challenged by the petitioner and the petitioner having not challenged the said communication, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner for direction to the respondent / BBMP to consider the representation dated 04.01.2016 for
complying with the order passed in W.P.No.36851/2014 is not maintainable.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as
not maintainable.
Sd/JUDGE
HA/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition filed for directing the respondent to consider a fresh representation is maintainable when the petitioner failed to challenge the earlier communication stating a dispute over
Smt. Dr. Varalakshmi
The Commissioner Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike
The Assistant Executive Engineer Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike
Hemant Chandangoudar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
