Disposed

Mr D Shiva Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Nov 2024WP/22409/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner alleged promoters were constructing a multi-storeyed project in Bengaluru contrary to the sanctioned plan and sought execution of BBMP's demolition-related directions. The Court found the deviation question pending before the Appellate Authority under Section 253 BBMP Act and disposed of the writ petition, reserving liberty to seek impleadment there.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of leaving deviation questions to the pending Section 253 appeal; petitioner at liberty to apply for impleadment therein.

Mr D Shiva Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:47275 WP No. 22409 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 22409 OF 2023 (LB-BMP)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

MR D SHIVA KUMAR S/O DEVENDRA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS C/A AT 14, KAMAL PRASH DENA BANK COLONY GANGANAGAR BENGALURU-560032.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. NITIN A M.,ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001.

¶12

BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER HUDSON CIRCLE BANGALORE-560001.

¶13

THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER THE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:47275 WP No. 22409 of 2023

¶16

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE HUDSON CIRCLE BENGALURU-01.

¶17

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER EAST BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU-01.

¶18

THE JOINT DIRECTORS TOWN PLANNING(NORTH) BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE HUDSON CIRCLE BENGALURU-01.

¶19

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER SHANTHINAGAR SUB DIVISION BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE HUDSON CIRCLE BENGALURU-01.

¶20

MR. DINESH KUMAR JAIN S/O MR. PARASMAL NO. 219, SHAKTHI NILAYA 5^TH FLOOR, INDUSTRIAL TOWN RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560010.

¶21

MR V PARASMAL

¶22

S/O LATE MR VASLIMAL 35, LONFORD ROAD BENGALURU-560027.

¶23

M/S HERITAGE INFRASTRUCTURES REP. BY SHARE HOLDER/PARTNER NO.234, GARUDACHAR COMPLEX

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:47275 WP No. 22409 of 2023

¶26

SV LAN, CHICKPET CROSS BENGALURU-560053.

¶27

HERITAGE SIGNATURE 550-63, AKKITHIMANAHALLI LAYOUT SHANTHINAGAR

¶28

BENGALURU-560027.

¶29

SUB-REGISTRAR SHANTHI NAGAR 58, KH ROAD GROUND FLOOR BMTC TTMC BUILDING SHANTHI NAGAR NEAR SUDHAMA NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 027.

¶30

…RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SMT.SPOORTHI V., HCGP FOR R1 & R11; SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R6; SRI. ANIL KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R7 TO R10)

¶32

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-ISSUE WRIT FOR THE EXECUTION OF DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE R5 VIDE NO.JDTP(N)/PR/284/2023-24 DATED 05.06.2023 AND OFFICE ORDER ISSUED BY THE R3 VIDE NO.CC/PR.101/2023-24 DATED 27.07.2023, I.E., ANNEXURE-F AND G RESPECTIVELY AND FURTHER ISSUE DIRECTION TO RESPONDENTS TO DEMOLISH THE SAID BUILDING WHICH WAS BUILT THROUGH UNAUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:47275 WP No. 22409 of 2023

¶35

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

¶36

ORAL ORDER

¶37

The petitioner has sought for directions to the concerned Joint Director of Town Planning with the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike [ the fifth respondent ] to act in terms of certain Guidelines issued vide Work Order dated 27.07.2023 to ensure that the construction is not commenced and continued contrary to the sanction plan. The petitioner contends that the seventh to ninth respondents, who are Promoters of a multi storied project in Akkithimmanahalli Layout, Shanthinagar, Bengaluru, are putting up construction contrary to the sanction plan.

¶38

This Court on 26.10.2023 has granted interim orders directing inspection of the subject property while observing that if any construction is put up contrary to the sanction plan, the

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:47275 WP No. 22409 of 2023

¶41

jurisdictional Sub-Registrar must not permit registration of any document in relation to such excess construction. It is now placed on record that after this Court's Order, the proceedings have been initiated under Section 248 of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 [for short 'BBMP Act' ], resulting in Confirmation Order under Section 248[3] of the BBMP Act with the seventh and ninth respondents calling in question such order in the appeal filed under Section 253 of the BBMP Act.

¶42

Sri Nitin A M, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Anil Kumar Shetty, the learned counsel for the seventh to tenth respondents, Sri Pawan Kumar, the learned standing counsel for the second to sixth respondents, and Smt. Spoorthi V, a learned High Court Government Pleader, for the first and eleventh respondents, are heard for final disposal in the turn of events.

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:47275 WP No. 22409 of 2023

¶45

This Court is of the considered view that if

¶46

the question, whether the construction by the concerned respondents is contrary to the sanction plan, is now pending consideration before the Appellate Authority, all questions relating thereto must be examined in such appeal. Therefore, the petition must be disposed of with just exceptions and liberties.

¶47

As regards the submission that the civil suit is also instituted by the private respondents against the BBMP because of the threat of immediate demolition, it will suffice for this Court to observe that the civil Court must consider the maintainability of the said suit in the light of the subsequent proceedings as adverted to above. The seventh to tenth respondents, who are plaintiffs in such a suit, are directed to place a certified copy of the order in the concerned civil Court. In the light of the afore, the following:

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:47275 WP No. 22409 of 2023

¶50

ORDER

¶51

[a] The petition stands disposed of leaving open all questions about the deviations of the construction by the seventh to tenth respondents in the pending appeal under Section 253 of the BBMP Act.

¶52

[b] It is observed that if the petitioner justifies his locus standi , will be at liberty to file application for impleadment in such appeal proceedings and if the petitioner files an application in terms of the liberty now reserved, the Appellate Authority shall consider the same strictly in accordance with law.

¶53

Consequentially, all pending applications stand

¶54

disposed of.

¶55

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶56

AN/-

Mr D Shiva Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr D Shiva Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

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

Mr Ravi Dhanunjaya Vs the Commissioner

Syed Ahmmed Vs the State of Karnataka