Disposed

M/S Lupin Ventures Pvt. Ltd. v. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Karnataka HC5 Dec 2024WP/18010/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted the petitioner one month until 31.01.2025 to allow the BBMP to demolish unauthorized construction. The Court directed implementation of the Confirmation Order dated 03.07.2023, reserving the right to pursue further remedies in case of default.

What did the court decide?

Directing the first to third respondents to ensure removal of unauthorized construction by 31.01.2025, permitting petitioner to seek further remedies in case of default.

M/S Lupin Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bruhat… — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:50149 WP No. 18010 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 18010 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

M/S LUPIN VENTURES PVT LTD A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER

¶7

THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.5, 3^RD FLOOR C WING, LAXMI TOWERS BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (EAST) MUMBAI 400051 REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR NILESH SHYAMSUNDER AGRAWAL.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. ADITYA CHATTERJEE AND

¶10

MS. NIKITHA SURABHI., ADVOCATES)

¶11

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

AND:

¶13

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE REP BY THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER HEAD OFFICE AT N R SQUARE BENGALURU 560002.

¶14

THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER MAHADEVAPURA ZONE, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:50149 WP No. 18010 of 2024

¶16

OFFICE OF JOINT COMMISSIONER OPP PHOENIX MALL RHB COLONY BENGALURU 560048.

¶17

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE MARATHAHALLI SUB DIVISION, HEAD OFFICE AT N R SQUARE BENGALURU 560002.

¶18

MR SRINIVAS REDDY RESIDING AT NO.13/A 3^RD CROSS 8^TH MAIN CHIKKASANDRA BLOCK KORAMANGALA BANGALORE 560034.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI.PAWAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. ONKARA K.B., ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 TO DEMOLISH THE STRUCTURE THAT HAS BEEN ILLEGALLY CONSTRUCTED AT SY.NO.14, NEXT TO NISARGA, KEMPAPURA VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BELLANDUR WARD, BENGALURU-560 037 IN A TIMEBOUND MANNER.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS

¶23

DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:50149 WP No. 18010 of 2024

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The petitioner has sought for directions to the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and its officers [ the first to third respondents ] to demolish the construction in Sy.No.14 described as being next to Nisarga, Kempapura Village, Varthur Hobli, Bellandur Ward, Bengaluru - 560 037 [ the subject property ]. The petitioner contends that though the proceedings are initiated under Section 248 of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 [for short, 'the BBMP Act' ] resulting in the Confirmation Order on 03.07.2023 [ Annexure-P ] no action is taken by these respondents to demolish the construction and the fourth respondent is encouraged to continue with the construction.

¶28

This Court in the light of this contention has called upon Sri Pawan Kumar, the learned counsel for the first to third respondents, to secure

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:50149 WP No. 18010 of 2024

¶31

instructions on the status of the proceedings. Sri.Pawan Kumar seeks permission to place on record the following:

¶32

[a] the fourth respondent's appeal as against the Confirmation Order dated 03.07.2023 in Appeal No.154/2023

¶33

under Section 253 of the BBMP Act is dismissed in the month of May 2024;

¶34

[b] thereafter notice for demolition is issued to the fourth respondent and with the fourth respondent failing to demolish the unauthorised construction, the concerned have sought for budgetary approval.

¶35

[c] The budgetary approval is granted and the

¶36

matter is pending before the appropriate Committee which will have to oversee the application of funds and demolition.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:50149 WP No. 18010 of 2024

¶39

The learned counsel submits that if this Court grants one month, appropriate action will be taken.

¶40

Sri Aditya Chatterjee, the learned counsel

¶41

for the petitioner, and Sri Onkara K.B., the learned counsel for the fourth respondent, are heard. The learned Counsels submit that the fourth respondent's grievance with the Confirmation Order dated 03.07.2024 and the Appellate Authority's order dated 18.05.2024 [ the date of dismissal of the appeal in No.154/2023 ] is pending consideration before this Court in W.P.No.16953/2024 with Sri Aditya Chatterjee stating that the fourth respondent has not even attended to the office objections for over four months and the petition is yet to be listed for Preliminary Hearing.

¶42

The afore circumstances are considered,

¶43

and this Court must opine that the petition must be disposed of allowing the first to third respondents time until 31.01.2025 to ensure that terms of the

¶44

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:50149 WP No. 18010 of 2024

¶45

Confirmation Order dated 03.07.2023 are implemented by removal of unauthorised construction observing that if there is any default, unless indicted by this Court’s order in W.P.No.16953/2024, the petitioner must be at liberty to pursue remedies as would be permissible in law.

¶46

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶47

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶48

SA ct:sr

M/S Lupin Ventures Pvt. Ltd. v. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Lupin Ventures Pvt. Ltd. v. 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

M/S G M Property Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Vyvasaya Seva Sahakara Sangha Niyamita Vs State of Karnataka

Abdul Rasheed Vs the Commissioner

Dr. R. Yatish Ramalingaiah Vs the Bbmp Commissioner

Sri K Swarup Kumar Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Shantha Bai Vs the State of Karnataka