Disposed

Sri Ganesh D v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC7 Nov 2024WP/23347/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners alleged a neighbouring owner was building without setback and contrary to the sanctioned plan. The court found the owner had filed appeal orders with statutory appeal and disposed of the petition, directing him to seek appellate approval before resuming construction.

What did the court decide?

None granted directly; all questions left open to the Appellate Authority (Appeal No.191/2024); R4 to apply there and build only when permitted.

Sri Ganesh D Vs the Commissioner — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:44996 WP No. 23347 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 23347 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI GANESH D S/O DEVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,

¶9

JAYALAKSHMI W/O DEVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶10

Digitally signed by ANAND N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT, NO. 391, 5TH MAIN, NAGENDRA BLOCK, HANUMANTHNAGAR, BENGALURU - 560019

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. SARAVANA S., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP) N R SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560002.

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:44996 WP No. 23347 of 2024

¶17

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH) BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP) N R SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560002.

¶18

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER SUB DIVISION, GIRINAGAR, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP) BENGALURU - 560085.

¶19

D SURAJ S/O K L DWARAKANATH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/A NO. 50, 1ST FLOOR, KNL COMPLEX, 2ND CROSS, JOURNALIST, COLONY, BANGALORE - 560002.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. SHANTHA B. MULLUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AS PER ANNEXURE-D, DATED. 12.07.2024 AND TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS AGAINST ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION ALREADY PUT UP BY THE R4 BEING PUT UP IN VIOLATION OF THE SANCTION PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP) ACT, 2020 AND TO NOTIFY THE PETITIONER ABOUT THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE COMMISSIONER-BBMP; DIRECT

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:44996 WP No. 23347 of 2024

¶24

THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO REMOVE THE UN-AUTHORISED ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION PORTION PUT UP BY 4TH RESPONDENT IN DEVIATION OF THE BUILDING BYE LAWS OF BBMP ACT 2020, IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY BEARING NO.378, NEW NO.5, SITUATED IN 6TH MAIN ROAD, NAGENDRA BLOCK, HANUMANTH-NAGAR, BENGALURU.

¶25

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

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The petitioner, who is the owner of property No.391, 5^th Main Nagendra Block, Hanumanth Nagar, Bengaluru, has filed this petition asserting that the fourth respondent, the owner of a neighboring property, is putting up construction without setback and in violation of the Sanctioned Plan. This Court has called upon the jurisdictional Assistant Revenue Officer [ARO] to conduct inspection and file a report. The concerned officer has not filed such report.

¶28

However, Sri. Chandrashekar, the learned counsel for the fourth respondent, submits that only

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:44996 WP No. 23347 of 2024

¶30

because this Court has called for a Report, antedated Preliminary and Confirmation Orders are prepared and such Orders are affixed on the compound wall along with the notice under Section 313 of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020. When queried, the learned counsel submits that his instructions are that the construction is according to the Sanctioned Plan and the fourth respondent is constrained to stop the construction.

¶31

Further, Sri. Chandrashekar submits that the fourth respondent has availed statutory remedy before the Appellate Authority in Appeal No.191/2024. The petition must be disposed of in the light of the turn of events leaving open all questions to be examined by the Appellate Authority. Insofar as the fourth respondent continuing with the construction, this Court is of the considered view on perusal of the records, including the photographs made available, that the fourth respondent must file

¶32

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:44996 WP No. 23347 of 2024

¶33

an application with the Appellate Authority and commence construction only when so permitted by the Appellate Authority.

¶34

The petition stands disposed of with the

¶35

observation and liberty as aforesaid.

¶36

SD/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶37

Sri Ganesh D v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ganesh D v. the Commissioner

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

Shashikala Vs the Tahsildar

Smt. Umadevi. M Vs the State of Karnataka

Iffath Wasim Vs the Commissioner

Mr. M R Seetharam Vs Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Chetana Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Provident Welworth City Apartment Owners Association (Regd) Vs the State of Karnataka