Disposed

Sri. Ajay Kumar Agarwal v. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Karnataka HC29 Nov 2024WP/21686/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of two connected writ petitions regarding construction disputes and notices under the BBMP Act. The Court directed the petitioner to file additional documents and restrained further construction pending their consideration, while preventing precipitate action by the municipality.

What did the court decide?

Petitions disposed of; liberty to petitioner to file further documents within four weeks; stay on further construction and vacancy until application considered; BBMP directed not to take precipitate a

Sri. Ajay Kumar Agarwal Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:49188 WP No. 21686 of 2023 C/W WP No. 5146 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 21686 OF 2023 (LB-BMP)

¶6

C/W

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 5146 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)

¶8

IN WP No. 21686/2023

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. AJAY KUMAR AGARWAL S/O. HARISH KUMAR AGARWAL, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT NO. 776, HARIPUSP, 15^TH MAIN, 100 FEET RING ROAD, J. P. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 078.

¶11

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. G K SHIVA PRAKASH.,ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE-560 002. REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING SOUTH BANGALORE SOUTH JAYANAGAR,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:49188 WP No. 21686 of 2023 C/W WP No. 5146 of 2024

¶19

WARD NO. 178, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BANGALORE-560 011.

¶20

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH) BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, WARD NO. 178, N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE-560 002.

¶21

SRI. B. S. NESERA S/O. SRI. D. S. SHIVARAMA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT NO. 194, MANDYA HOUSE, 7^TH MAIN ROAD, JAYANAGAR 4^TH BLOCK, NEAR JAYANAGAR POLICE STATION, BANGALORE-560 011.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. B V MURALIDHAR.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. MANMOHAN P.N., ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-DIRECT THE R1 TO R3 TO TAKE ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THE ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY THE R4 IN SCHEDULE B PROPERTY AT 4^TH AND 5^TH FLOOR FOR ITS DEMOLITION BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION AT ANNEXURE-D DATED 01.08.2023.

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:49188 WP No. 21686 of 2023 C/W WP No. 5146 of 2024

¶27

IN WP NO. 5146/2024

¶28

BETWEEN:

¶29

SRI B S NESARA S/O SRI D S SHIVARAMA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT NO 194, MANDYA HOUSE NEAR JAYNAGAR POLICE STATION BENGALURU - 560011 REPRESENTED BY SPA HOLDER SRI GANGADHAR S S/O SONAPPA K AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT NO 91/3, 1^ST FLOOR 1^ST MAIN NETHARI ROAD, 2^ND BLOCK TYAGARAJ NAGAR NEAR KEB QUARTERS BENGALURU - 560028.

¶30

...PETITIONER

¶31

(BY SRI. MANMOHAN P N.,ADVOCATE)

¶32

AND:

¶33

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE NR SQUARE CORPORATION CIRCLE BENGALURU - 560002 REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶34

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH) BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE 9^TH CROSS, 9^TH MAIN ROAD 2^ND BLOCK JAYANAGAR BENGALURU - 560011.

¶35

...RESPONDENTS

¶36

(BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:49188 WP No. 21686 of 2023 C/W WP No. 5146 of 2024

¶39

THIS WP IS FILED ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE PROVISIONAL ORDER AND SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 05.08.2023 ISSUED BY THE R2 BEARING NO.SA.NI.NAYO(D)/PR/PO/95/2023-24 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-H AND J AND; QUASH THE CONFIRMATION ORDER DATED 18.08.2023 PASSED BY THE R2 BEARING NO.SA.NI.NAYO(D)/CO/95/2023-24 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-K; QUASH THE ORDER DATED 06.09.2023 PASSED BY THE R2 BEARING NO.JUM.A(D)/PR/97/2023-24 (PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-L AND; QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 07.09.2023 PASSED BY THE R2 BEARING NO.SA.NI.NA.YO(D)/P.O/C.O/95/23-24 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-M.

¶40

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

¶41

ORAL ORDER

¶42

These petitions are by the persons who have interest in neighbouring properties with one claiming ownership and another asserting rights under the Joint Development Agreement dated 18.06.2020. The petitioner in the writ petition in W.P. No.21686/2023 has filed this petition asserting that the petitioner in the other petition in W.P. No.5146/2024 is putting up construction contrary to the sanction plan but the

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:49188 WP No. 21686 of 2023 C/W WP No. 5146 of 2024

¶45

Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike is not taking any action and therefore there must be just directions. The petitioner in the writ petition in W.P. No.5146/2024 has called in question the Provisional Order/Notice thereof under Sections 248[1] and 248[2] of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 [for short 'BBMP Act' ] and the Confirmation Order under Section 248[3] of the BBMP Act.

¶46

This Court in the writ petition in W.P. No.21686/2023 has directed joint inspection of both the properties, and the Provisional and Confirmation Orders impugned in the writ petition in W.P. No.5146/2024 are as a consequence of such inspection of one property. The property owned by the petitioner in the writ petition in W.P. No.21686/2023 is inspected and the applications are filed for directions in that regard.

¶47

It transpires from the pleadings and the submissions that the petitioner in W.P.

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:49188 WP No. 21686 of 2023 C/W WP No. 5146 of 2024

¶50

No.5146/2024 has filed an application under Section 240[8] of the BBMP Act seeking approval of the additional constructions which admittedly are after issuance of the Occupancy Certificate and that this application is rejected for incomplete documentation with the petitioner in the writ petition in W.P. No.5146/2024 stating that in fact he has submitted all the documents subsequent to the Endorsement rejecting the request for approval of additional construction.

¶51

The learned counsel for the petitioner in the writ petition in W.P. No.21686/2023 is categorical that the petitioner does not object inspection of his property and it is only because of certain bona fide circumstances, the officers were not permitted by the women folk at home to carry out inspection. This Court must also observe that, as directed by this Court, the petitioner in the writ petition in W.P. No.5146/2024 has filed the affidavit

¶52

¶53

NC: 2024:KHC:49188 WP No. 21686 of 2023 C/W WP No. 5146 of 2024

¶54

stating that the building is not completely occupied and he will not continue with the construct without the leave of this Court.

¶55

Sri P N Manmohan, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.5146/2024, submits that this petition could be disposed of taking on record the statement in the affidavit that the construction will not be commenced without approval and leaving open all contentions to be agitated once the petitioner's application under Section 240[8] of the BBMP Act is considered in the light of the further documents filed. Sri B V Muralidhar, the learned counsel for the respondents-BBMP submits that if another set of documents is filed by the petitioner in W.P. No.5146/2024, the concerned from the BBMP will consider the same within a timeline. The learned counsel also submits that the property of the petitioner in W.P. No.21686/2023 would be inspected

¶56

¶57

NC: 2024:KHC:49188 WP No. 21686 of 2023 C/W WP No. 5146 of 2024

¶58

to verify whether there is any reason for initiation of the proceedings under Section 248 of the BBMP Act.

¶59

This Court must observe that these submissions narrow down the canvass for

¶60

consideration. The questions for consideration will be whether this petition in W.P. No.21686/2023 would survive for consideration and the terms upon which the other petition in W.P. No.5146/2024 must be disposed of. It is indisputable that with the proceedings initiated by the BBMP under Section 248 of the BBMP Act, which is essentially on a complaint by the petitioner in W.P. No.21686/2023, this petition will not survive for consideration. The respondents must examine whether the application under Section 240[8] of the BBMP Act by the petitioner in W.P. No.5146/2024 can be considered, and if such application can indeed be considered, the benefit that would inure to the petitioner. This Court is of the considered view that there should be no

¶61

¶62

NC: 2024:KHC:49188 WP No. 21686 of 2023 C/W WP No. 5146 of 2024

¶63

precipitation either by the petitioner or the respondent Hence, the following:

¶64

ORDER

¶65

[a] The petitions in W.P. No.21686/2023 and W.P. No.5146/2024 stand disposed of permitting the petitioner in W.P. No.5146/2024 to file another set of documents in support of the application filed under Section 240[8] of the BBMP Act directing the Joint Director of Town Planning, BBMP South Zone, to consider the petitioner's application with liberty to the petitioner to file further documents within four [4] weeks from today.

¶66

[b] The petitioner in W.P. No.5146/2024 in terms of the undertaking filed cannot put up any further construction or let the petitioner occupy the constructed portion until there is due consideration of the

¶67

10 -

¶68

NC: 2024:KHC:49188 WP No. 21686 of 2023 C/W WP No. 5146 of 2024

¶69

application filed under Section 240[8] of the BBMP Act.

¶70

[c] It is needless to observe that if the cause survives in the petitioner as against the impugned Order under Section 248 of the BBMP Act even after consideration of the application under Section 240[8] thereof, the petitioner must be reserved with all just liberty to invoke the permissible jurisdiction without being prejudiced by this disposal.

¶71

[d] The BBMP and its Officers are directed not to take any precipitative action as against the construction by the petitioner in W.P. No.5146/2024 until due consideration of the application under Section 240[8] of the BBMP Act and shall also inspect the property of the petitioner

¶72

11 -

¶73

NC: 2024:KHC:49188 WP No. 21686 of 2023 C/W WP No. 5146 of 2024

¶74

in W.P. No.21686/2023 and initiate such

¶75

action as may be necessitated.

¶76

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶77

AN/-

Sri. Ajay Kumar Agarwal v. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Ajay Kumar Agarwal 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 Suresh Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S G.S. Homes and Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Sri. S. Radhakrishna Vs the Chief Commissioner

M/S Cauvery Super Speciality Hospital Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Bhaskar a, Vs the State of Karnataka

Sunningdale Developments Vs Assistant Revenue Officer