Allowed

Aruna Sunderlal v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC10 Mar 2022WP/781/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This jurisdiction of the High Court Lok Adalat allowed a writ petition seeking mandamus directing the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Commissioners to act on complaints regarding illegal construction by a third party respondent, issuing them time to pass appropriate orders after providing an opportunity to the owner.

What did the court decide?

Writ of mandamus directing the Commissioners of BM to consider complaints regarding illegal construction and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

Aruna Sunderlal Vs the Commissioner — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE, BENGALURU BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^th DAY OF MARCH, 2022

¶5

CONCILIATORS PRESENT:

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA

¶7

¶8

SRI. M.N. UMASHANKAR, MEMBER

¶9

W.P. No. 781/2016 (LB-BMP) (Lok Adalat No. 63/2022)

¶10

BETWEEN

¶11

Aruna Sunderlal

¶12

Wife of late Rajinder P. Sunderlal, Aged 76 years, (Senior Citizen), Flat No.D1, Nitesh Camp David, No.32, Netaji Road, Pulikeshnagar (Formerly Fraser Town), Bangalore-560 005, Since dead and represented by her LRs

¶13

(a) Mr. Vikram Sunderlal Son of late Rajinder P. Sunderlal, Aged 52 years, No.19, Aswini Dutta Road, Calcutta, West Bengal-700 029.

¶14

(b) Mrs. Shefali Sunderlal Chandel Wife of Ajai Singh Chandel, Aged 56 years, No.84,

¶15

¶16

Beacon Hill Road, Port Washington, New York NY 11050, United States of America.

¶17

...PETITIONERS

¶18

(By Sri. : Ian Lewis, Advocate)

¶19

AND

¶20

1 . The Commissioner, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, N.R. Square, Bangalore-560 009.

¶21

The Joint Commissioner, Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, Mayo Hall, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Bangalore-560 001.

¶22

Mrs. Parimala G. Wife of late G. Radhakrishnan, Aged about 60 years, Pushpa Vilas, No.34, Netaji Road, Pulikeshnagar (Formerly Fraser Town), Bangalore – 560 005. RESPONDENTS

¶23

(By Sri. K.V. Mohan Kumar, Advocate for R-1 and R-2, Sri. P.B. Raju, Advocate for R-3)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE 1^ST AND 2^ND RESPONDENTS TO ACT ON THE COMPLAINTS / LETTER COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE 1^ST AND 2^ND RESPONDENTS UNDER THE ORIGINAL OF ANNEXURE ‘C’ AND ANNEXURE ‘D’ AND ETC..

¶25

¶26

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR CONCILIATION BEFORE LOK ADALAT, THE FOLLOWING CONCILIATION ORDER IS PASSED:

¶27

CONCILIATION ORDER

¶28

The petitioners have filed the present writ petition sought for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents No.1 and 2 to act on the complaints / letter communication from the petitioners to the 1^st and 2^nd respondents under the original of Annexures ‘C’ and ‘D’ to demolish the illegal construction being put up at No.34, Netaji Road, Pulikeshnagar (formerly Frazer Town), Bangalore-560 005 by respondent No.3.

¶29

The respondents have not filed any objections. Though the matter is of the year 2016 there is no impediment for this Authority to issue a mandamus directing the official respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider the prayer sought by the petitioners after giving an opportunity to the contesting respondent No.3.

¶30

In view of the above, we pass the following :

¶31

ORDER

¶32

The Writ Petition is allowed and a writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondents No.1 and 2 to consider the request of the petitioners as per

¶33

¶34

Annexures ‘C’ and ‘D’ after giving an opportunity to the 3^rd respondent and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order without giving room for further

proceedings.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/MEMBER

Rbv

Aruna Sunderlal v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aruna Sunderlal v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajakumar S/O Siddanna Vs Nekrtc

Siddanna Vs Amaresh and Anr.

Shivanna Vs Divisional Controller

Mr. D.G. Umesh Vs the Commissioner

Mr. K. Balakrishna Vs the Commissioner

D Thyappa Vs the Commissioner