Disposed

Sri. Nanda S.K v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC18 Jul 2023WP/38935/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of the writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner complained about construction by respondents 8 and 9. The court observed that an appeal remedy was available to the respondents. Permission was granted to file an appeal.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of, and permission was granted to the contesting respondents No. 8 and 9 to file an appeal within 15 days.

Sri. Nanda S.K Vs the Commissioner — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:24904 WP No. 38935 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.38935 OF 2019 (LB-BMP)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. NANDA S.K S/O SRI R SELVARAJ AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.43, 1^ST CROSS, R R LAYOUT, VIJINAPURA, DOORAVANI NAGAR BENGALURU-560016

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. ARUN K S., ADVOCATE SMT. VINUTHA ARUN, ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER

¶15

B.B.M.P. HEAD OFFICE CORPORATION CIRCLE, HUDSON CIRCLE, N R SQUARE BENGALURU-560002

¶16

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU EAST B.B.M.P. MAHADEVAPURA ZONE, WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD, OPP PHOENIZ MARKET CITY

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:24904 WP No. 38935 of 2019

¶19

RGB COLONY, MAHADEVAPURA BENGALURU-560048

¶20

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER WARD NO.51, VIJINAPURA WARD, HORAMAAVU SUB DIVISION, B.B.M.P. JAYANTHI NAGAR MAIN ROD NEAR GANDHI STATUE, HORAMAAVU BENGALURU-560113

¶21

THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER WARD NO.51, VIJINAPURA WARD, HORAMAAVU SUB DIVISION, B.B.M.P. JAYANTHI NAGAR MAIN ROD NEAR GANDHI STATUE, HORAMAAVU BENGALURU-560113

¶22

THE CHAIRMAN KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD CHURCH STREET BENGALURU-560001 6. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) (COM O & M), BESCOM NO.100, 1^ST FLOOR, 2^ND MAIN, PAI LAYOUT, BENNIGANAHALLI BENGALURU-560116

¶23

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE RAMAMURTHY NAGAR POLICE STATION,

¶24

¶25

NC: 2023:KHC:24904 WP No. 38935 of 2019

¶26

VIJINAPURA DOORAVAANI NAGAR BENGALURU-560016

¶27

SRI. D. JOEL S/O P. DORAISWAMY AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS

¶28

SMT. GNANMONEY JOEL W/O SRI. D. JOEL AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS

¶29

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO. 32 & 41, NEW NO. 1843, I MAIN, 1^ST CROSS R.R. LAYOUT, VIJINAPURA BENGALURU-560016.

¶30

…RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SRI. ARAVIND M NEGLUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4 SRI. NAGARAJU T., ADVOCATE FOR R5 SMT. PADMA S UTTUR, ADVOCATE FOR R6 SRI. SANTHOSH KUMAR M.B., HCGP FOR R7 SRI. ARJUN REGO, ADVOCTE FOR R8 & R9)

¶32

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-3 TO STRICTLY IMPLEMENT THE ORDER OF THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PASSED IN APPEL NO.711/2011 DATED 08.07.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND ETC.,

¶33

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

¶34

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:24904 WP No. 38935 of 2019

¶35

ORDER

¶36

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶37

The petitioner has made several complaints to the respondents - BBMP officials to take action against respondents No.8 and 9, who were alleged to have put up a construction without obtaining a sanctioned plan and using the first floor of the premises as a prayer hall. However, the matter went up to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal found that the contesting respondents had obtained a sanctioned plan at the hands of the then Gram Panchayat, Vijinapura. Nevertheless, fresh action was taken and provisional order under Section 248(1) was issued on 01.07.2022 followed by a show cause notice issued under Section 248(2). Thereafter, a confirmation order has also been passed on 18.07.2022.

¶38

During the course of these proceedings, a direction was issued to the concerned Assistant Executive Engineer of the BBMP to inspect the property and furnish a report. The inspection was carried out in the presence of

¶39

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:24904 WP No. 38935 of 2019

¶40

the rival parties and a report has been submitted today at

¶41

the hands of the learned counsel for the respondents - BBMP. It is clear from the report that the contesting respondents No.8 and 9 have put up construction joining two properties, without obtaining any order in that regard or obtaining any sanctioned plan to put up construction amalgamating the two properties. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also furnished photographs to show that one common building has been put up amalgamating the two properties and first floor is being used as a prayer hall, which is the root cause for all these problems.

¶42

Nevertheless, since an appeal provision is

¶43

available for the contesting respondents No.8 and 9 to approach the Chief Commissioner, this writ petition stands disposed of permitting the contesting respondents No.8 and 9 to file necessary appeal within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If such an appeal is filed, the Chief Commissioner shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the contesting respondents

¶44

NC: 2023:KHC:24904 WP No. 38935 of 2019

¶45

¶46

herein and thereafter proceed to pass orders and take the proceedings to its logical conclusions. If no appeal is filed, the concerned officer may proceed in accordance with law.

¶47

Ordered accordingly.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

KLY

Sri. Nanda S.K v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Nanda S.K 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 J Somshekar Vs the Joint Commissioner (East)

Sri P Manjunath Pujaraiah Vs the Registrar of Co. Operative Societies

Sri Narayanappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Suresh Kumar H Vs Chief Executive Officer

Smt Rathnamma Vs the Additional Chief Secretary

Karavali Credit Cooperative Society Ltd., Vs Miss Sujatha B