Allowed

Mr K Venkatachalam v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC19 Jul 2023WP/2481/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a writ petition and quashed a notice issued by the Health Officer under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, alleging unauthorized commercial use. The court held that since the building was constructed and used in accordance with a sanctioned plan for IT/BP/R purposes and residential use, no interference was warranted.

What did the court decide?

The impugned notice dated 28.12.2015 and all further proceedings thereto are hereby quashed and set aside.

Mr K Venkatachalam Vs the Commissioner — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:25181 WP No. 2481 of 2016

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 2481 OF 2016 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR K VENKATACHALAM SINCE DECEASED BY LR

¶9

PADMARANI VENKATACHALAM @MRS. V. PADMA RANI W/O MR. ARUNKUMAR PASUPATHY D/O LATE K. VENKATACHALAM AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS CURRENTLY R/A 14018, SADDLE RIVER DR. NORTH POTOMAC MD 20878 USA

¶10

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER MRS. V. SUBASHINI @MRS. SUBASHINI GUPTHA W/O MR. S.R. LAKSHMAN GUPTA D/O LATE K. VENKATACHALAM AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/A APARTMENT NO.544 SOBHA DEW FLOWER APARTMENTS 4^TH CROSS, M.G. GARDEN, SARAKKI ROAD J.P. NAGAR 1^ST PHASE BANGALORE-560078.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. B.K. SAMPATH KUMAR., ADVOCATE)

¶14

¶15

NC: 2023:KHC:25181 WP No. 2481 of 2016

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGAR PALIKE CORPORATION CIRCLE HUDSON CIRCLE BANGALORE-560 002

¶18

THE HEALTH OFFICER JAYANAGAR DIVISION BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE I FLOOR, JAYANAGAR 4^TH BLOCK BANGALORE-506 011

¶19

SOMAYAJI KVR S/O LATE VASUDEVA SOMAYAJI AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, NO.97, 3^RD MAIN, 2^ND CROSS, SARAKKI LAYOUT J.P NAGAR 4TH PHASE, BANGALORE - 560 078.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 SRI. SOMAYAJI K.V.R. (PARTY-IN-PERSON) FOR R3)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DTD 28.12.2015 (ANENXURE-A HEREIN) ISSUED BYTHE R-2DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY THE COSTS OF THIS PETITION AND GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE OPERATION OF THE ILLEGAL NOTICE DTD28.12.2015 (ANNEXURE-A HEREIN) ISSUED BY THE R-2 AND DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO MAINTAIN STATUS QUO.

¶23

¶24

NC: 2023:KHC:25181 WP No. 2481 of 2016

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

ORDER

¶27

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶28

The petitioner was visited with the impugned notice dated 28.12.2015 at Annexure ‘A’ issued by the second respondent-Health Officer, Jayanagar Sub-Division, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, wherein it was alleged that complaints have been received stating that the petitioner has been utilizing the building in question for commercial purposes. It is stated in the notice that the area in question being a purely residential area, no commercial activity was permissible. Therefore, the petitioner was called upon to explain why action should not be taken in terms of the provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976.

¶29

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶30

the petitioner caused a reply dated 04.01.2016, within a few days after receipt of the impugned notice. It was stated in the reply that the petitioner obtained a sanction

¶31

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:25181 WP No. 2481 of 2016

¶32

plan dated 26.08.2009 for putting up construction of ground, first and second floors for the purposes of IT/BT/BPO and for residential purpose. The petitioner stated that the construction has been put up in terms of the sanction plan and therefore no action could be taken against the petitioner.

¶33

Learned Counsel would further submit that it appears that the immediate cause for the impugned notice may be certain directions issued by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in various Public Interest Litigations, including W.P.No.3676/2008 and connected matters. Nevertheless, since the petitioner had obtained a sanction

¶34

plan for putting up a construction for the purposes of IT/BT/BPO and residential purpose, no fault can be found with the petitioner. However, the apprehension of the petitioner is that the respondent-Health Officer may proceed to reject the submissions of the petitioner and cause damage to the building.

¶35

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:25181 WP No. 2481 of 2016

¶36

Statement of objections have been filed at the hands of the respondent-BBMP and additional statement of objections were also filed on 18.04.2017. While pointing out to the additional statement of objections, learned Counsel submits that the respondent-BBMP has practically admitted that there is no violation on the part of the petitioner. In fact, in the additional statement of objections, it is admitted that a plan was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner in the year 2009. It is also stated that the petitioner is using the basement/cellular floor for parking vehicles and there is no violation of the building bye-laws and the terms and conditions of the sanction plan. Photographs have also been annexed with the additional statement of objections.

¶37

At this juncture, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the plan was sanctioned for stilt, ground floor, first and second and there was no sanction for basement/cellular parking as has been stated in the

¶38

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:25181 WP No. 2481 of 2016

¶39

statement of objections. The stilt floor is continued to be used for parking vehicles.

¶40

That being the position, the petitioner is entitled to continue to use the building for the purpose for which it was sanctioned and to that extent, no objection can be raised by any person or the Officers of the BBMP.

¶41

This Court, having found that the petitioner has put up the construction in accordance with the sanction plan and is using the building for the purposes of IT/BT/BPO and residential purpose, there cannot be any interference at the hands of the respondent-BBMP.

¶42

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed . The impugned notice dated 28.12.2015 and all further

¶43

proceedings thereto are hereby quashed and set aside.

¶44

Ordered accordingly.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

JT/-

Mr K Venkatachalam v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr K Venkatachalam v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Suresh Kumar H Vs Chief Executive Officer

Smt Rathnamma Vs the Additional Chief Secretary

Sri. Nanda S.K Vs the Commissioner

Raymond Ltd. Vs the Commissioner

Pavan Bhadraiah Vs the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahangara Palike

Shine Outdoor Media Vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike