Allowed

Shree Shree Mariswamymutt Hitarakshana and Jeernodhara Samithi v. the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Karnataka HC10 Dec 2024WP/14722/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A registered society challenged BBMP's order directing demolition of structures at Mariswamy Mutt Road as dilapidated. The Court found the Joint Commissioner issued the order without visiting or inspecting the property and despite recent renovations, making it arbitrary, and quashed it, leaving all questions open in the pending civil suit.

What did the court decide?

Impugned BBMP demolition order dated 18.11.2021 (Annexure-A) quashed; all questions left open to be decided in pending suit O.S.No.296/2022.

Shree Shree Mariswamymutt Hitarakshana and… — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:51029 WP No. 14722 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 14722 OF 2023 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHREE SHREE MARISWAMYMUTT HITARAKSHANA AND JEERNODHARA SAMITHI S/O MADAPPA NO 151, MARISWAMY MUTT, A V ROAD, KALASIPALYA, BENGALURU - 560002 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI RAJASHEKARAYYA A M

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SANDEEP S PATIL., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE CORPORATION BUILDING HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE- 560002 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶14

SMT RATHNA SIDDARAJU W/O LATE G SIDDARAJU AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS

¶15

SMT PRAMEELA SHIVAKUMAR W/O LATE G SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS `

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:51029 WP No. 14722 of 2023

¶18

SRI G B UDAY

¶19

S/O LATE G BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

¶20

ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO 20, NEW HIGH SCHOOL ROAD, V V PURAM BENGALURU - 560004

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. SATYANAND B S., ADVOCATE FOR R1; M.M.PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 18.11.2021 BEARING NO.JO.VA.AA(SOUTH)P.R/1469/1/202122 ISSUED BY THE R-1 - BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (PRODUCED AS ANNX-A).

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner, a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 on 15.03.2017, has called in question the first respondent's order dated 18.11.2021 [ Annexure-

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:51029 WP No. 14722 of 2023

¶29

A ]. The first respondent i.e., the Joint

¶30

Commissioner, BBMP by this order has directed the petitioner, under Section 256(3) of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 [for short, ' the BBMP Act' ], to demolish the structures in the property bearing No.50/05, PID No.48-7250/5, Mariswamy Mutt Road [Albert Victor Road], Kalasipalya, Bengaluru essentially on the ground that the structures in this property is in a dilapidated condition and must be brought down.

¶31

It is undisputed that there is a civil suit between the petitioner, the private respondents and certain third parties in O.S.No.296/2022 and that there are certain interim directions in such suit. If the petitioner contends that the first respondent has issued the impugned order without verifying whether the structures in the subject property are indeed in a dilapidated

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:51029 WP No. 14722 of 2023

¶34

condition justifying orders under Section 256(3) of the BBMP Act, the private respondents and the BBMP, propose to rely upon the orders in the suit to contend that the order is justified in law and the petitioner has no locus to call in question the same.

¶35

Sri. Sandeep Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri. B. S. Satyanand, a learned standing counsel for the BBMP, are heard in the light of these rival submissions. Sri. B. S. Satyanand also proposes to contend that the authorities have inspected the property, but it bears no conviction. This Court has called upon the petitioner to place on record materials to justify its interest in the subject property and the office of the Joint Commissioner to place on record materials that are examined to issue the impugned order in the premise that the

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:51029 WP No. 14722 of 2023

¶38

structures in the subject property are in a dilapidated condition.

¶39

Sri. Sandeep Patil proposes to rely

¶40

upon a host of documents, including certain additional documents, and Sri. B. S. Satyanand submits on instructions, that the only material that the Joint Commissioner could place on record are the orders by the civil Court in O.S.No.296/2022 and certain photographs. It suffices for this Court to observe that the concerned Joint Commissioner could not have opined that the structures in the property are in a dilapidated condition without even visiting the subject property. This Court in rendering this opinion is also persuaded by the photographs that are produced along with the writ petition and the statement on behalf of the respondents that the renovations have been carried out mostly in

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:51029 WP No. 14722 of 2023

¶43

the last two years. The impugned order therefore is arbitrary and must yield.

¶44

On the petitioner's locus, which is

¶45

essentially to look after the affairs of the property, this Court must opine that this is an aspect that is still at large in the suit in O.S.No.296/2022 and therefore, this Court need not examine that aspect. In the light of the afore, the petition is allowed quashing the impugned order dated 18.11.2021 [ Annexure-A ] observing that all questions otherwise are left open to be decided in the pending suit and that this outcome cannot foreclose any proceedings that could be commenced justifiably.

¶46

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶47

Shree Shree Mariswamymutt Hitarakshana and Jeernodhara Samithi v. the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shree Shree Mariswamymutt Hitarakshana and Jeernodhara Samithi v. the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

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

Hotel Paraag Limited Vs the Commissioner

Smt. Bindu Ramanan Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Smt M Shanthamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Joy Esther Chandra Vs the Commissioner of Bbmp

Sri. Sunil Shetty Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Basavaraju Vs State of Karnataka