Allowed

B S Nagendra @ Nagendra v. the Assistant Executive Engineer

Karnataka HC10 Mar 2023WP/25408/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the demolition notice proceedings, alleging failure to serve the Section 321(2) confirmatory order and discrepancies in signatures on notices under the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act. The High Court set aside the impugned orders and directed an enquiry into forged signatures.

What did the court decide?

Certiorari issued setting aside the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and the demolition order; petitioner granted opportunity for hearing; enquiry directed into forged signatures.

B S Nagendra @ Nagendra Vs the Assistant… — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - WP No. 25408 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.25408 OF 2016 (LB-BMP)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

B S NAGENDRA @ NAGENDRA S/O SRI B K SATHYANARAYANA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDING AT NO 46/2 3^RD CROSS, NAGASANDRA, THYGARAJANAGAR BANGALORE - 560028

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. KRISHNA S B., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by POORNIMA SHIVANNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OFFICE OF THE BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE BASAVANAGUDI SUB ZONE, CHANNAMMANAKERE ACCHUKATTTU OPP S S M SCHOOL BANGALORE – 560028

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE N R SQUARE (BBMP) BANGALORE - 560002

¶14

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.PAWAN KUMAR ., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. H. DEVENDRAPPA ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER

¶16

¶17

WP No. 25408 of 2016

¶18

DATED 30.01.2016 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN APPEAL NO.379/2014 WHICH IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-A AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 11.04.2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-G PASSED BY THE FIRST RESONDENT AND ETC.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶22

a. Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other writ setting aside the order dated 30.01.2016 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in Appeal No.379/2014 which is produced herewith as AnnexureA and quash the order dated 11-04-2014 passed by the first respondent and

¶23

b. Grant such other relief/s directions or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶24

The contention of the petitioner is that without issuance of the confirmatory order under Section 321 (2) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (for short, ‘the Act’), the property of the petitioner is sought to be demolished. The petitioner had approached the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.379/2014 which had also dismissed. As

¶25

¶26

WP No. 25408 of 2016

¶27

such, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

¶28

This Court vide order dated 22.02.2023 had directed the counsel for the respondents to produce the original records to establish the service of notice.

¶29

Sri.Pawan Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents has handed over the original file pertaining to the matter today.

¶30

A perusal of the file indicates that the notice has been issued to M.V.Gurudat and others who are alleged to be the joint owners. However, the said notice bears the signature of one Narendra for having received the notice on 15.04.2014 when infact there is no such person by name Narendra or M.V.Gurudatta and others. The concerned person is the petitioner namely B.S.Nagendra. The signature being of Narendra, I am of the considered opinion

¶31

¶32

WP No. 25408 of 2016

¶33

that the same could not have been one which could be attributed to the petitioner.

¶34

The notice under Section 321 (1) the Act is also found in the file which has been received by the petitioner Nagendra. The signature of Nagendra as regards the notice under Section 321 (1) the Act and that under Section 321 (3) the Act are completely different. This leads only to a conclusion that someone else has sought to sign 321 (3) notice as Nagendra, forged the signature in a similar manner as found under 321 (1) notice and 321 (3) notice. To the naked eye, both the signature as also the name indicates that it is not of the same person who has signed 321 (1) and 321 (3) notices acknowledging the receipt thereof.

¶35

In view thereof, firstly, I am of the considered opinion that the confirmatory order has not been properly served on the petitioner requiring the same to be set aside and an opportunity be granted to the

¶36

¶37

WP No. 25408 of 2016

¶38

petitioner to be heard in the matter before an order is passed.

¶39

Secondly, I am of the considered opinion that 2^nd respondent Commissioner would have to cause enquiry into the manner in which the signature is affixed, who has affixed the signature and thereafter take stringent action against those persons in accordance with law since it is on the basis of such documents that a property of a citizen is sought to be demolished without affording an opportunity. As such, I pass the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

i. The Writ Petition is allowed.

¶42

ii. A certiorari is issued setting aside the order dated 30.01.2016 passed in Appeal No.379/2014 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal vide Annexure-A and the order dated 11.04.2014 passed by respondent No.1 at Annexure-G as also quashed.

¶43

¶44

WP No. 25408 of 2016

¶45

iii. The respondents are directed to consider the objections filed by the petitioner in relation thereto as also afford an opportunity to the petitioner of hearing and thereafter pass necessary orders.

¶46

iv. The 2^nd respondent – Commissioner, BBMP is directed to cause an enquiry into the signature and the name/signature found on the original of Annexure-G and thereafter take necessary action against such person. The Commissioner is also directed to issue necessary instructions to all the concerned to effect service of notice on the concerned person and not to indulge in fraudulent practices, detailing the implications thereof.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

PRS

¶49

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

B S Nagendra @ Nagendra v. the Assistant Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B S Nagendra @ Nagendra v. the Assistant Executive Engineer

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

Smt Nirmala R Naidu Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Sharadamma Vs Bangalore Development Authority

Sri C R Dinesh Kumar Vs Town Municipal Council

Optumsoft Research Private Limited Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Sri C John Prakash Vs the Commissioner

Sri.M.P.Raghunath Vs Commissioner