Dismissed

M M Ibrahim v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC12 Jul 2023WP/8561/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka held that a writ petition seeking removal of unauthorized construction is infructuous as authorities have already initiated action. The court directed the Assistant Director to hear contesting respondents and complete the proceedings within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directing Respondent No. 4 to hear Respondents 5 and 6 and proceed according to law within two months.

M M Ibrahim Vs the Commissioner — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:24054 WP No. 8561 of 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 8561 OF 2023 (LB-BMP)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M M IBRAHIM

¶10

AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, S/O LATE M M ISMAIL, 59/3, BENSON CROSS ROAD, BENSON TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 046.

¶11

M M YUSUF, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O LATE M M ISMAIL, 59/3, BENSON CROSS ROAD, BENSON TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 046.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. CHANNEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAMESHCHANDRA, ADVOCATE)

¶14

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI

¶15

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE COMMISSIONER BBMP, N.R. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 002.

¶18

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, SHIVAJI NAGAR DIVISION, BBMP, WARD NO. 63, SHIVAJI NAGAR, SUB-DIVISION, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 051.

¶19

¶20

NC: 2023:KHC:24054 WP No. 8561 of 2023

¶21

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER SHIVAJINAGAR DIVISION, VASANTH NAGAR, BBMP, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 051.

¶22

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING(EAST), BBMP, 22^ND FLOOR, UTILITY BUILDING, M. G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶23

MR. MIR MUKARAM, NO. 669//1, 1ST STAGE, 2ND BLOCK, HBR LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 043.

¶24

MR. K. MIR MOAZAM, NO. 58/1, BENSON CROSS ROAD, BENSON TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 046.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN REDDY K. S, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3 SRI. NAVEED AHMED, ADVOCATE FOR R5 AND R6)

¶27

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R1 TO R4 TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND NECESSARY ACTION BE TAKEN TO REMOVE THE CONSTRUCTION IN PROPERTY BEARING NO. 58/1 BENSON CROSS, ROAD, BENSON TOWN, BENGALURU 560 046 DONE IN VIOLATION OF SANCTIONED PLAN AND ETC.,

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

NC: 2023:KHC:24054 WP No. 8561 of 2023

¶31

ORDER

¶32

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶33

The petitioners have made complaints to respondent officers of the BBMP regarding the unauthorised construction at the hands of respondent Nos.5 and 6 on the neighbouring property. The prayer in the writ petition is to direct the respondent authorities to remove the unauthorised construction/deviated portion.

¶34

During the course of these proceedings, the respondent officers were directed to inspect the property and submit a report. Learned counsel for the respondent-BBMP submits that a report of the respondent-Assistant Director of Town Planning, East Zone, BBMP has been filed on 06.07.2023. Along with the report, copy of the provisional order passed under Section 248(1) of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 on 23.06.2023, and a copy of a notice issued under Section 248(2) dated 23.06.2023 is also furnished.

¶35

Learned counsel for the contesting respondent Nos.

¶36

5 and 6 submit that the contesting respondents may be permitted to raise their objections and contest the matter.

¶37

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:24054 WP No. 8561 of 2023

¶38

In view of the subsequent developments and the

¶39

fact that action has been initiated by the respondent authorities against respondent Nos.5 and 6 by issuing a provisional order

¶40

and a notice under Section 248(2) of the Act, the prayer made in the writ petition has become infructuous.

¶41

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of by directing respondent No.4-Assistant Director of Town Planning, East Zone, BBMP, to hear respondent Nos.5 and 6 and thereafter, proceed in accordance with law. The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Ordered accordingly.

CT: BHK

Sd/JUDGE

M M Ibrahim v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M M Ibrahim 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

J K Technosoft Limited Vs Unikul Solutions Private Limited

Dr Sanjay Rao Vs Kazo Fashion Limtied

Mrs. Shambhavi Shetty Vs Mrs. Rita Barboza

Mohammed Vs the Chief Executive Officer

Shabbir Khan Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Leelavathi Vs State of Karnataka