Allowed

Mr Ravi Dhanunjaya v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC21 Nov 2024WP/17385/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging orders of the BBMP regarding construction deviations. The Court allowed the petitioners to remove offending construction deviations within six weeks of marking, with a warning that failure to comply would result in demolition action under Section 356 of the BBMP Act.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to remove deviations within six weeks of marking; otherwise demolition action under Section 356 BBMP Act at petitioners' cost.

Mr Ravi Dhanunjaya Vs the Commissioner — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:47482 WP No. 17385 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 17385 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR RAVI DHANUNJAYA S/O RAVI PULLALAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS. R/AT FLAT NO.405, ARYAKRISHNA APARTMENTS, CANARA BANK LAYOUT. KODIGEHALLI, BENGALURU-560 092.

¶9

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

MRS. CHAITHANAYA DARUR W/O MR.RAVI DHANUNJAYA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.405, ARYAKRISHNA APARTMENTS, CANARA BANK LAYOUT, KODIGEHALLI, BENGALURU-560 092.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. H. RAMACHANDRA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER BBMP, HEAD OFFICE, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560002.

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:47482 WP No. 17385 of 2024

¶17

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, YELAHANKA ZONE. BYATARAYANAPURA SUB-DVN BELLARY ROAD, BYATARAYANAPURA. NEAR AMRUTHAHALLI SIGNAL, AMRUTHAHALLI, BENGALURU-560092.

¶18

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, TOWN PLANNING, BBMP, WARD NO.5, BELLARY ROAD. BYATARAYANAPURA, NEAR AMRUTHAHALLI SIGNAL, AMRUTHAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 092.

¶19

THE CHIEF ENGINEER, YELAHANKA ZONE. BYATARAYANAPURA SUB-DVN.. BELLARY ROAD. BYATARAYANAPURA. NEAR AMRUTHAHALLI SIGNAL, AMRUTHAHALLI, BENGALURU-560092

¶20

THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BBMP, WARD NO.5 and 6 (DASARAHALLI), YELAHANKA ZONE, BYATARAYANAPURA SUB-DVN. BELLARY ROAD, BYATARAYANAPURA, NEAR AMRUTHAHALLI SIGNAL, AMRUTHAHALLI, BENGALURU-560092.

¶21

MRS.SUDHA RAO, W/O DR. RAJA MUGASIMANGALAM, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS. R/AT NO.24, 5TH CROSS, ROYAL ENCLAVE, SRIRAMPURA, JAKKUR, BENGALURU-560064

¶22

MRS. DEEPA CHIKARMANE, W/O MR. VINEET CHIKARAMANE,

¶23

¶24

NC: 2024:KHC:47482 WP No. 17385 of 2024

¶25

AGED MAJOR. R/AT NO.83, 5TH CROSS, ROYAL ENCLAVE, SRIRAMPURA, JAKKUR, BENGALURU-560064

¶26

MR.SATYADEV H.N., S/O LATE DR.H.N.NAGARAJA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO. 1919, FRUITDALE AVENUE APARTMENT, B4. SAN JOSE CA-95128, USA.

¶27

REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER. MRS. RATANAMALA, W/O LATE DR.H.N.NAGARAJA. AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/AT BRAHMI, NO.233, 16TH CROSS, 8TH MAIN, MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU-560055.

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO T5; SRI. VIKRAM SIMHA, ADVOCATE FOR R6 TO R8)

¶30

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1 DTD. 18.05.2024 IN APPEAL NO. 19/2024 VIDE ANNX-J.

¶31

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

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:47482 WP No. 17385 of 2024

¶34

ORAL ORDER

¶35

The petitioners are the owners of property in Katha No.46/71/43/82, Srirampura Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru, and they have filed this petition calling in question the Provisional Order dated 10.11.2023, the Confirmation Order dated 26.12.2023 and the Order dated 18.05.2024 in Appeal No.19/2024 on the file of the Chief Commissioner, BBMP. The order dated 18.05.2024 is impugned in the appeal filed by the petitioners under Section 253 of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 [for short, ' the BBMP Act' ].

¶36

However, presently an application is filed by the petitioners for directions to the BBMP/its Officers to remove the alleged violation at the petitioners' cost and for permission to complete the construction in accordance with the sanctioned plan. Sri. H. Ramachandra, the learned counsel for the petitioners, while inviting this Court's attention to the

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:47482 WP No. 17385 of 2024

¶39

order dated 12.12.2023 in W.P.No.23535/2023, submits that the petitioners had to stop all constructions in compliance with the directions in this order, and he submits that the petition indeed could be disposed of with the direction that is sought for in the application.

¶40

Sri. Pawan Kumar, a learned standing counsel for the BBMP and its Officials, and Sri. Vikram Simha, the learned counsel for the sixth to eighth respondents, are heard in the light of this request. This Court is of the considered view that if the petitioners want to bring the construction in compliance with the sanctioned plan and recommence construction, there must be just orders in that regard, especially if the petitioners themselves want to bring the construction in accordance with the sanctioned plan. This Court must also observe that the petitioners must be permitted to remove the offending construction lest the public exchequer is

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:47482 WP No. 17385 of 2024

¶43

extended needlessly. Further, this Court is of the view that only if the petitioners fail to remove the offending construction entirely within a reasonable time, the BBMP must act as is contemplated under Section 356 of the BBMP Act. In the light of the afore, the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

a. The petition is disposed of directing the fifth respondent - the jurisdictional Assistant Executive Engineer, BBMP -

¶46

to mark the deviations in the

¶47

constructions from the sanctioned plan within two [2] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order permitting the petitioners to remove the deviation so marked within six [6] weeks from the date of such marking.

¶48

b. The petitioners will be at liberty to file a certified copy of this order within two

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:47482 WP No. 17385 of 2024

¶51

[2] weeks from the date of receipt

¶52

thereof.

¶53

c. It is needless to observe that if the petitioners, do not on their own volition mark the deviations within six [6] weeks as is now contemplated, the BBMP and its Officers shall take action for demolition under Section 356 of the BBMP Act at the cost of the petitioners.

¶54

In view of the disposal of the main petition, all the pending I.As also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶55

SD/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶56

Mr Ravi Dhanunjaya v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Ravi Dhanunjaya 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

Sri. Gangadharaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Nanda Kumar N.R. Vs Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Prasanna Kumar B Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Somaraju Vs the Commissioner of City Municipal Council

Syed Ahmmed Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr D Shiva Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka