Dismissed

Mrs. Sajida Begum v. the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Karnataka HC23 Sept 2024WP/25368/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging BBMP notices and confirmation order under the BBMP Act was dismissed as withdrawn since an efficacious statutory appeal lay under Section 253. Petitioner granted liberty to appeal and respondents directed not to precipitate matters for 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to challenge the order before the appropriate forum; no precipitate action for 30 days.

Mrs. Sajida Begum Vs the Bruhat Bengaluru… — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:39439 WP No. 25368 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 25368 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MRS. SAJIDA BEGUM AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, W/O LATE MR. MOHD ABBAS, PRESENTLY R/AT NO.21, ALLABASKH'S RESIDENCY CHAMUNDI NAGAR MAIN ROAD, 1^ST CROSS, DINNUR, R.T.NAGAR BENGALURU-560032.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. NARAYANA K., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by R DEEPA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R.SQUARE, MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 002 (REPTD. BY ITS COMMISSIONER)

¶15

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING (EAST), OFFICE OF THE JOINT DIRECTOR, BBMP, 22^ND FLOOR, PUBLIC UTILITY BUILDING, MAYOHALL, M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU 560 001

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. P. B. ACHAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:39439 WP No. 25368 of 2024

¶20

QUASH AND DECLARE THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE R-2 DATED 15.02.2024, BEARING REF.NO.SNNU/EAST/PO/132/ 2023-24 (ANNEXURE-E) U/S 248(1) OF KMC ACT; NOTICE BEARING REF.NO.SNNU/EAST/PO/132/2023-24 (ANNEXURE-F) U/S 248(2) OF THE KMC ACT AND THE NOTICE BEARING REF. SNNU/EAST/PO/132/2023-24 DATED 26.08.2024 EVICTION NOTICE ANNEXURE-G ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND UNSUSTAINABLE UNDER LAW.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by the BBMP has filed this writ petition challenging the confirmation order passed by the BBMP under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020.

¶25

The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the impugned order is appealable under Section 253 of the BBMP Act, 2020 and submits that the writ petition filed by the petitioner without exhausting the efficacious remedy, is not maintainable.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits

¶27

that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the writ

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:39439 WP No. 25368 of 2024

¶29

petition, with liberty to approach the Chief Commissioner under Section 253 of the BBMP Act, 2020, and meanwhile, the interest of the petitioner may be protected.

¶30

Perused the records and considered the

¶31

submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

¶32

The order passed by the BBMP is appealable under Section 253 of the BBMP Act, 2020. The petitioner, without exhausting the efficacious remedy, has filed this writ petition. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order before the appropriate forum.

¶33

Meanwhile, the respondents are directed not to precipitate the matter for a period of 30 days from today.

¶34

SD/(ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE

¶35

Mrs. Sajida Begum v. the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Sajida Begum v. the 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

Sapthagiri Enterprises Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. v. Shantha Veerappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Eshwara Engineers Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Hussain Shariff Vs the Commissioner

Mr. Ahmed Rafiq Vs the Town Municipality

Sri Honnesh Gowda B.R. Alias Yajman Honnesh Gowda B.R. Vs the Chief Executive Officer