Disposed

Smt Rudramma v. the Joint Commisisoner

Karnataka HC12 Dec 2024WP/19273/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought directions to BBMP officials to act against the fourth respondent's alleged unauthorised construction. BBMP counsel undertook to take appropriate action within eight weeks after obtaining legal opinion. Court disposed of the petition recording this undertaking with liberty reserved.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed on BBMP's undertaking to act within eight weeks; petitioner free to seek remedies on breach.

Smt Rudramma Vs the Joint Commisisoner — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:51236 WP No. 19273 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.19273 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. RUDRAMMA AGED 65 YEARS, W/O. LATE NAGARACHAR, REP. BY SRI N. PRAVEEN KUMAR, AGE 42 YEARS, S/O. LATE L. NAGACHAR, R/AT NO.31, “SRI KALIKAMBA KULUME ANGADI”, 9^TH MAIN, 4^TH CROSS, NEAR SRINIVASA KALYANA MANTAPA, ITTAMADU, BSK III STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 085. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI ASHOK K.L., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

THE JOINT COMMISISONER, BBMP SOUTH ZONE, BBMP COMMERCIAL COMPLEX BLDG., 9^TH CROSS ROAD, 9^TH MAIN, 2^ND BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 011.

¶12

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BBMP, PADMANABHANAGAR SUB DIVISION, C.J.V. ROAD, PADMANABHANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 070.

¶13

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH) BBMP COMMERCIAL COMPLEX BLDG., 9^TH CROSS ROAD, 9^TH MAIN,

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:51236 WP No. 19273 of 2024

¶16

2^ND BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 011.

¶17

SMT. M SHANTHA BAI AGE: MAJOR, W/O. SRI YASHWANT RAO, R/AT NO.32, ITTAMADU, 3^RD PHASE, III STAGE BSK, BENGALURU – 560 085. ... RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. .,ADVOCATE)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE R1 TO 3 TO TAKE SUITABLE ACTION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE BBMP ACT 2020 AGAINST THE R-4 ON THE REPRESENTATION DATED 03.02.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioner asserts that the BBMP and its officials [the first to third respondents] have not taken any action despite initiation of the proceedings under Section 321 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1974. The petitioner has filed this petition for directions to act under the provisions of the BBMP Act, 2020. This Court has called upon Sri Siddharth P Desai, the learned counsel for the BBMP and its officials, to secure instructions.

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:51236 WP No. 19273 of 2024

¶25

Initially, Sri Siddharth P Desai placed on

¶26

record a report stating, amongst others, that [a] there are proceedings under Section 231 of the KMC Act but no further action is taken because of the pendency of the suit in O.S. No.2861/2016, [b] the fourth respondent had called in question the initiation of the proceedings in an appeal under 443 A of the KMC Act and that such an appeal is dismissed, and [c] the jurisdictional Assistant Executive Engineer has awaited legal opinion on the further action to be taken.

¶27

Sri Siddharth P Desai now submits that the suit in O.S. No.2861/2016 is dismissed and with the dismissal of the appeal by the KAT, that the jurisdictional Assistant Executive Engineer has obtained opinion and that in terms of such opinion proceedings could be completed under the provisions of the BBMP Act. When queried, the learned counsel submits that proceedings have been initiated for issuance of notice for demolition and that appropriate action would be taken within eight [8] weeks.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:51236 WP No. 19273 of 2024

¶30

Sri Naman V M, the learned counsel who has filed vakalath for the fourth respondent, submits that the fourth respondent has called in question the Tribunal’s order confirming the provisional confirmation order under Section 231 of the KMC Act in WP No.8318/2020, but owing to certain difficulties of the learned counsel on record the petition is dismissed for default in 2023 and an application is presently filed for restoration of the petition.

¶31

Sri Ashok K L, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is heard in the light of these circumstances and submissions. This Court is of the view that the petition must be disposed of taking on record the submission on behalf of the jurisdictional Assistant Executive Engineer that within eight (8) weeks from today appropriate action will be taken reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail remedy as would be permissible in law. This Court must also observe that if the respondents violate the statement to act within eight [8] weeks, which is taken as an undertaking, the petitioner will be at liberty to avail permissible remedy in law. It is needless

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:51236 WP No. 19273 of 2024

¶33

¶34

to observe that disposal of the petition will not foreclose any application that may have been filed by the fourth respondent.

¶35

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶36

YKL List No.: 2 Sl No.: 12

Smt Rudramma v. the Joint Commisisoner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Rudramma v. the Joint Commisisoner

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

Smt Joy Esther Chandra Vs the Commissioner of Bbmp

Shree Shree Mariswamymutt Hitarakshana and Jeernodhara Samithi Vs the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Sri. Sunil Shetty Vs the State of Karnataka

Umashankar Vs the State of Karnataka

Bhoomanand Manay Vs State of Karnataka

Tumakur Urban Development Authority Vs State of Karnataka