Disposed

Smt Zabina Taj v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC6 Jul 2023RP/285/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a review petition filed by a petitioner challenging an order in an earlier writ petition. The challenger argued they were not heard due to a wrong address and claimed the original writ petitioner should have been given an opportunity under Section 240(8) of the BBMP Act. The Court held these were not grounds for review absent an error apparent on the face of the record.

What did the court decide?

The review petition stands disposed of and the connected interim application is dismissed.

Smt Zabina Taj Vs the Commissioner — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:23283 RP No. 285 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS REVIEW PETITION NO.285 OF 2023 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3557 OF 2023

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. ZABINA TAJ W/O LATE ARIF KHAN AGED 50 YEARS RESIDING AT 9TH A MAIN ROAD OPP. SUN BEAM SCHOOL, BTM 1ST STAGE BENGALURU.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI M. VINOD KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by DHARMALINGAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N. R. SQUARE BENGALURU - 560 004.

¶13

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (SOUTH) BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N. R. SQUARE BENGALURU - 560 004.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH) BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N. R. SQUARE BENGALURU - 560 004.

¶15

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC:23283 RP No. 285 of 2023

¶17

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE WARD NO.171, JAYANAGARA BENGALURU - 560 029.

¶18

MR. N. GAFFAR KHAN S/O LATE NASRATH KHAN AGED 64 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.17 5TH MAIN ROAD BANNERUGHATTA ROAD NEW GURAPPANA PALYA BENGALURU - 560 029.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE, FOR R-1 TO R-4)

¶21

¶22

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF THE C.P.C., PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 2-62023 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.3557/2023.

¶23

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶26

This review petition has been filed at the hands of

¶27

respondent No.5 in Writ Petition No.3557 of 2023 (LB-BMP). The said writ petition was filed by one Sri N. Gaffar Khan, respondent No.5 herein, aggrieved by inaction on the part of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara

¶28

NC: 2023:KHC:23283 RP No. 285 of 2023

¶29

¶30

Palike (for short, 'B.B.M.P.') to take action against the petitioner herein who was allegedly putting up construction in violation of the building bye-laws of the Corporation. During the course of the proceedings, the Officers of the B.B.M.P. issued notice to the petitioner herein and further, passed a provisional order followed by second notice under Section 248(3) of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 (for short, 'Act, 2020').

¶31

Having been satisfied with the action taken by the respondent-B.B.M.P., the writ petition was disposed of directing respondent No.4-Assistant Executive Engineer, Jayanagara Sub-Division, B.B.M.P., Bengaluru, to proceed in accordance with law, consequent to the notice issued under Section 248(3) of the Act, 2020, with a further direction to conclude the proceedings and to take action in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2023:KHC:23283 RP No. 285 of 2023

¶34

Learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that a wrong address was shown by the writ petitioner and therefore, respondent No.5 did not receive any notice. Consequently, the order has been passed without hearing respondent No.5 and therefore, this review petition is filed.

¶35

Learned counsel further submits that out of eight weeks granted by this Court, five weeks have already lapsed and therefore, the review petitioner will be put in

¶36

great difficulty, if this Court does not give any relief to the review petitioner.

¶37

Learned counsel would also submit that this Court has permitted the violators to file an application under Sub-Section (8) of 240 of the Act, 2020, which enables a person who had put up unauthorised construction without obtaining a sanctioned plan from the B.B.M.P., to pay penalty and apply for sanction of the building plan in accordance with the chapter governing the regulation of

¶38

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:23283 RP No. 285 of 2023

¶39

buildings, namely Chapter XVI. Learned counsel,

¶40

therefore, submits that the review petitioner ought to have been given such an opportunity.

¶41

In the considered opinion of this Court, merely because the review petitioner contends that she did not receive notice from this Court and therefore, the said order passed by this Court should be reviewed, would not meet the requirements of law. Review is permissible only in case where there is an error apparent on the face of the record. Moreover, this Court had only taken note of the proceedings initiated by the respondent-B.B.M.P. which was duty bound to take action against the violators. Opportunity is naturally to be given to the writ petitioner while answering the notice issued by the respondentB.B.M.P. Nevertheless, since the writ petitioner sought to file an application as per Sub-Section (8) of Section 240 of the Act, 2020, the writ petitioner was permitted to make such an application before the competent Authority. If the

¶42

¶43

NC: 2023:KHC:23283 RP No. 285 of 2023

¶44

petitioner wants to implead in the proceedings, she may

¶45

file necessary application.

¶46

With these observations, the review petition

¶47

stands disposed of .

¶48

In view of the disposal of the review petition, I.A.

¶49

No.1 of 2023 does not survive for consideration and

¶50

accordingly, it is dismissed.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

KVK

Smt Zabina Taj v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Zabina Taj 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

Mr. Rudra Pratap Singh Vs M/S Siddharta Resorts and Foods

Sri B Madhusudan Rao Vs the Commissioner

Sri. Giridhar Vs M/S. Sowparnika Projects and

Sri C B Puneeth Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt N Hemalatha Vs the State of Karnataka

P. Hemaraju Vs the State of Karnataka