Disposed

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

Karnataka HC7 Nov 2024WP/25226/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by an apartment owners association challenging a notice from the Dodballapura Planning Authority proposing demolition of a temporary shed on a civic amenity site. The Court directed the petitioner to file a response and called upon the Authority to consider the petitioner's show cause submission while preserving the civic amenity status of the land.

What did the court decide?

The petition and application are disposed of; liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file response to the impugned Show Cause Notice within 15 days.

M/S Provident Welworth City Apartment Owners… — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:44998 WP No. 25226 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 25226 OF 2024 (LB-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Digitally signed by ANAND N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶7

M/S PROVIDENT WELWORTH CITY APARTMENT OWNERS ASSOCIATION (REGD) ASSOCIATION REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA APARTMENT OWNERS ACT, 1972 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT ADMINISTRATIVE BLOCK, COMMON AMENITY SPACE BLOCK (CLUBHOUSE) PROVIDENT WELWORTH CITY APARTMENT OWNERS ASSOCATION DODDABALLAPURA ROAD MARASANDRA BANGALORE NORTH - 562163 SMT. VIDYA MISHRA …PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. SUNIL S.RAO.,ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA (REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY) DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, M S BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560001.

¶11

BENGALURU METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HAVING OFFICE AT NO.1, ALI ASKER RD,

¶12

¶13

NC: 2024:KHC:44998 WP No. 25226 of 2024

¶14

VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU KARNATAKA - 560052 REPRESENTED BY JOINT DIRECTOR.

¶15

DODDABALLAPURA PLANING AUTHORITY S.N.COMPLEX FIRST FLOOR, TOWN POLICE STATION, HINDUPUR RD, OPPOSITE D CROSS, YELAHANKA, DODDABALLAPURA KARNATAKA - 561203 REPRESENTED BY JOINT DIRECTOR.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT.SPOORTHI V., HCGP FOR R1;

¶18

SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶19

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO DEFER THE IMPLEMENTATION OF IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 27.08.2024 BEARING/DPA/TP/COURT/57/2022.23 AS FOUND AT ANNX-A PROPOSING DEMOLITION OF SANAKASHTAHARA BISILU GANAPATHI TEMPLE WITHIN THE PETITION SCHEDULE PROPERTY, PENDING ENQUIRY AND HAND OVER OF THE CIVIC AMENITIES SITES TO PETITIONER ASSOCIATION.

¶20

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

¶21

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:44998 WP No. 25226 of 2024

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioner claims it is an association of owners of certain apartments and it is constituted under the provisions of the Karnataka Apartment Owners' Act, 1972. The petitioner is aggrieved by the third respondent's Notice dated 27-08-2024 [ Annexure-A ]. The third respondent [ the Planning Authority ] has issued this Notice under Rule 37 of the Karnataka Planning Authority's Rule, 1965 ascertaining that the certain extent in Sy.Nos.30, 31, 32, 33, 34 and 161 of Kadatanamale village, Hesaraghatta Hobli, Bangalore North (Additional) Taluk is reserved as a civic amenity site, and that a temporary shed has been constructed in this extent and therefore this temporary shed must be removed within 15 days. The third respondent has addressed this Notice to M/s. Provident Welworth City Residents Welfare and Cultural Association [ the Applicant ] while

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:44998 WP No. 25226 of 2024

¶27

stating that no action has been taken despite repeated notices to remove the temporary shed.

¶28

The Applicant has filed its application to

¶29

come on record in the present proceedings, and it is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application that the third respondent has initiated proceedings at its instance. Sri Sunil S. Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K.Mathai, the learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Spoorthi V., the learned High Court Government Pleader for the first respondent, and Sri Yogesh D. Naik, the learned standing counsel for the second and third respondents, are heard for final disposal of the petition.

¶30

This Court must observe that there is some dispute between the petitioner and the applicant as to who between them can protect the interest of the apartment owners and therefore they have competing claims to the area that is reserved for

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:44998 WP No. 25226 of 2024

¶33

civic amenity. However, this dispute must be resolved in a proper proceeding if there is occasion for the same. Insofar as the petitioner's grievance with the third respondent's notice, this Court is of the considered view that it must also be extended an opportunity to show cause against the proposed action.

¶34

In this context this Court must observe that it is undisputed that the area that is identified as a civic amenity site in the impugned notice must be dealt by the third respondent under the applicable Rules/Regulations, and that the nature of this property cannot be altered howsoever. If the petitioner's contention is that they have undertaken some construction, they may place the material in that regard with the third respondent in response to the notice and the third respondent must consider the same with the sole purpose of protecting the

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:44998 WP No. 25226 of 2024

¶37

property as civic amenity without room for precipitation howsoever. Hence, the following

¶38

ORDER

¶39

The petition and the application stand disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner

¶40

to file response to the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 27.08.2024, within fifteen [15] days from today, calling upon the third respondent to consider the same as observed by this Court.

¶41

It is needless to observe that neither the petitioner nor the applicant can change the nature of the structure as it exists today until due consideration by the third

¶42

respondent.

¶43

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶44

SA ct:sr

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Provident Welworth City Apartment Owners Association (Regd) 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

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

Sri Ganesh D Vs the Commissioner