Disposed

Smt.J. Roopa v. the Chief Commissioner

Karnataka HC5 Sept 2024WP/12560/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mandamus directing BBMP officials to act on her complaints against respondents 6 and 7 for construction deviating from the sanctioned plan. Court directed respondents 1 to 5 to consider the complaints and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within four months.

What did the court decide?

Respondents 1-5 directed to consider complaints in Annexures B and C series and pass appropriate order per law within 4 months.

Smt.J. Roopa Vs the Chief Commissioner — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:36606 WP No. 12560 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 12560 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. J. ROOPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, W/O GOPALAKRISHNA, R/A NO.369, 12^TH CROSS ROAD, II STAGE, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, MAHALAKSHMIPRUAM BANGALORE 560086

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SHIVARAMU H C., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by R DEEPA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N R SQUARE, BANGALORE 560001

¶15

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (WEST) BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, SAMPIGE ROAD, MALLESWARAM BANGALORE - 560009

¶16

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, NAGAPURA WARD, NAGAPURA BANGALORE - 560009

¶17

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:36606 WP No. 12560 of 2024

¶19

NAGAPURA WARD, NAGAPURA BANGALORE - 560009

¶20

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING, WEST RANGE BASHYAM PARK, SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE - 560009

¶21

H N SHIVANANJAIAH AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, S/O NANJAIAH,

¶22

SMT VARALAKSHMI MAJOR, W/O SHIVANANJAIAH,

¶23

RESPONDENTS No.6 AND 7 ARE R/A No.11, DEVI KRUPA, 11^TH A CROSS, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BANGALORE 560086

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN REDDY K S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. MAHESH ARKALGUD, ADVOCATE FOR R6 AND R7)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE R1 TO R5 TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE R6 AND R7 IN TERMS OF THE REPORT AND MAHAZAR PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D SERIES BY CONSIDERING THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 02/11/2023 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B, B1 AND B2 AND C, C1, C2 AND C3 DTD. 05/04/2024, 21/02/2024 FORTHWITH.

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:36606 WP No. 12560 of 2024

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking for mandamus directing respondent Nos.1 to 5 to initiate proceedings against respondent Nos.6 and 7 in terms of the report and mahazar produced at Annexure-D series by considering the complaint filed by the petitioner dated 02.11.2023, 05.04.2024 and 21.02.2024 respectively vide Annexures-B, B1, B2, C, C1, C2 and C3.

¶32

Brief facts leading rise to filing of this writ petition are as under:

¶33

It is stated that respondent No.6 gave a complaint against the petitioner regarding the alleged illegal construction by the petitioner and confirmation order was passed under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020 on 13.03.2023. The petitioner also gave a complaint to the respondent No.3 against respondent No.7 in respect of site No.12 stating that, respondent No.7 has constructed the

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:36606 WP No. 12560 of 2024

¶35

building against the sanction plan and building bye-laws. The petitioner submitted the complaints vide Annexures-B and C series. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 have not considered the said complaints and passed any order. Hence, this writ petition.

¶36

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5, 6 and 7.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner submitted the complaints to take action against the respondent Nos.6 and 7, as they have constructed the building against sanction plan and the building bye-laws. The direction be issued to the respondent Nos.1 to 5 to take appropriate action against the respondent Nos.6 and 7. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 and 7 submits that direction be issued to respondent Nos.1 to 5 to take appropriate action in accordance with law.

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:36606 WP No. 12560 of 2024

¶39

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5

¶40

submits that respondent Nos.1 to 5 will consider the complaints submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶41

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents, respondent Nos.1 to 5 are directed to consider the complaints vide Annexures B and C series providing an opportunity to the parties to put forth their case and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within 4 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order .

¶42

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶43

SKS

Smt.J. Roopa v. the Chief Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.J. Roopa v. the Chief 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

The New World Hospitality Private Limited Vs Smt Bharathi Nagraj Urs

Sri Kalegowda Vs Sri Sannamogegowda

Smt Kamalamma Vs Sri Mohan

Kum Sushmitha S Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Srikanth Shastri Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Gurumurthy. B Vs the State of Karnataka