Quashed

Shri Halari Visa Oswal Samaj v. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Karnataka HC22 Oct 2024WP/21600/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed a BBMP Confirmation Order issued under Section 248(3) due to lack of proper adherence to due process. Court held that statutory opportunity to show cause must be granted before precipitative action, directing furnishing of the Preliminary Order for response.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Confirmation Order quashed; liberty granted to petitioner to request copy of Preliminary Order and file response after receiving copies.

Shri Halari Visa Oswal Samaj Vs Bruhat Bengaluru… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:42369 WP No. 21600 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 21600 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Digitally signed by ANAND N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

SHRI HALARI VISA OSWAL SAMAJ (A REGISTERED SOCIETY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT), HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.45/15 2ND MAIN ROAD, RAJAJIANGAR, INDUSTRIAL TOWN, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BENGALURU-560044 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI JAYESH Z SHAH S/O ZAVERCHAND AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. P D SURANA., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER N R SQUARE BENGALURU-560001

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:42369 WP No. 21600 of 2024

¶16

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING (WEST) BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BHYASHAM PARK SESHADRIPURAM BENGALURU-560055

¶17

ASSISTANT ENGINEER TOWN PLANNING (WEST) BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BHYASHAM PARK SESHADRIPURAM BENGALURU-560055

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNA REDDY K S., ADVOCATE)

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18/06/2024 BEARING NO. SA.NI.NA.YO(PA)/CO/16/24-25 ISSUED BY THE R2 AND 3 VIDE ANN-M, AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF OR RELIEFS.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:42369 WP No. 21600 of 2024

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioner has constructed a community hall in the property in No.45/15, 2^nd Main Road, Rajajinagar Industrial Town, West of Chord Road, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru-560 044. The petitioner asserts that this construction is completed way back in the year 2013 and all the amenities necessary for the use of the construction of the community hall have also been obtained from the concerned with the BBMP even issuing Trade License on 25.01.2014.

¶26

notwithstanding these circumstances, the impugned Confirmation Order dated 18.06.2024 [ Annexure-M ] is issued as is envisaged under Section 248(3) of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 [for short, ' the BBMP Act' ] but without the petitioner being served with notice of the Preliminary Order under Section 248(1) thereof.

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:42369 WP No. 21600 of 2024

¶29

Sri. P. D. Surana, the learned counsel for

¶30

the petitioner, canvasses that this Court must interfere and quash the Confirmation Order dated 18.06.2024 on the ground of failure to comply with the statutory requirement of due opportunity to show cause against Preliminary Order and lack of jurisdiction. The learned counsel also proposes to contend that the construction is completed after obtaining permissions and license as contemplated under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 and that any action for deviation must necessarily be under the aforesaid enactment and not under the BBMP Act.

¶31

Sri. Mallikarjuna Reddy K.S., the learned counsel for the BBMP and its Officials [ the respondents ], is heard in the light of these contentions. The learned counsel, while refuting the first submission, submits that the Preliminary Order under Section 248(1) of the BBMP Act is dated

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:42369 WP No. 21600 of 2024

¶34

18.06.2024 and a copy thereof is received by the petitioner on 27.05.2024 and therefore, this Court may not interfere on the ground of lack of opportunity.

¶35

These submissions, on compliance with the statutory requirement of due opportunity, is considered by this Court. This Court must observe that it remains beyond dispute that irrespective of the question whether the notice of the Preliminary Order is duly served on the petitioner or not, the petitioner has not responded to the allegations of constructing in violation of the Sanctioned Plan. The construction, as can be seen from the annexures appended to the petition, is more than a decade old. This Court, in the peculiarities of this case, is of the considered view that the petitioner must have due opportunity before there can be any precipitative action pursuant to the impugned Confirmation Order.

¶36

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:42369 WP No. 21600 of 2024

¶37

Therefore, leaving all contentions open, the petition stands disposed of quashing the impugned Confirmation Order dated 18.06.2024 [Annexure-M] but with liberty to the petitioner to file a request for copy of the Preliminary Order dated 18.06.2024 with a certified copy of this order and directing the second respondent to furnish such copies and allow the statutory time to the petitioner to file its response before proceeding to pass the Confirmation Order. It is needless to observe that if the petitioner does not file an application for copy of the Preliminary Order despite this opportunity within eight [8] weeks from today, the respondents will be at liberty to act but after notice under Section 356 of the

¶38

BBMP Act.

¶39

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶40

Shri Halari Visa Oswal Samaj v. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Halari Visa Oswal Samaj 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

Sri. S.S.R. Jayanth Vs the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

The Kasturi Serenity Residents Association (Regd) Vs State of Karnataka

Mohamed Mahazar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sparkle One Mall Developers Private Limited Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Srinivas Murthy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri K S Ravish Vs the Commissioner