Disposed

Bishop Angels School v. Chief Commissioner

Karnataka HC23 Nov 2024WP/29599/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A school facing BBMP demolition orders for constructing an unauthorised additional floor sought quashing of those orders. The court noted its Section 240(8) regularisation application was pending and disposed of the petition directing deferral of action until that application is decided within three months.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to defer further action on demolition orders until the Section 240(8) application is considered by the second respondent within three months.

Bishop Angels School Vs Chief Commissioner — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:47901 WP No. 29599 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 29599 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

BISHOP ANGELS SCHOOL OPP TO FCI QUARTERS, PATELLAMMA LAYOUT, KADUGODI, WHITEFIELD, BANGALORE - 560067 REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. M.ST. RAJA

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. AKASH V T., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

CHIEF COMMISSIONER

¶13

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU BANGALORE - 560002.

¶15

ZONAL COMMISSIONER WHITEFIELD SUB-DIVISION, MAHADEVAPURA ZONE, BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BANGALORE - 560066.

¶16

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER WHITEFIELD SUB-DIVISION, MAHADEVAPURA ZONE,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:47901 WP No. 29599 of 2024

¶19

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BANGALORE - 560066.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNA REDDY K.S., ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01.06.2024 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE CHIEF COMMISSIONER I.E., THE RESPONDENT NO.1 HEREIN IN APPEAL NO.191/2023 AT ANNEXURE-A; QUASH THE PROVISIONAL ORDER DATED 19.10.2023 UNDER SECTION 248 (1) OF THE B.B.M.P ACT, 2020 ANNEXURE-B; QUASH THE PROVISIONAL ORDER DATED 19.10.2023 UNDER SECTION 248 (2) OF B.B.M.P. ACT, 2020 BEARING NO.BRUH.BANG.MAHA.PA/SA.KA.AA/Y.UV/41/202 3-24 ANNEXURE-C; QUASH THE CONFIRMATION ORDER DATED 30/10.2023, BEARING NO.BRUH.BANG.MAHA.PA/SA.KA.AA/Y.UV/41/202 3-24, UNDER SECTION 248(3) OF THE BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE ACT, 2020 ANNEXURE-D.

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:47901 WP No. 29599 of 2024

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The petitioner [ an Educational Institution ] has filed this petition calling in question the Provisional/Confirmation Orders dated 19.10.2023 and 30.10.2023 and the dismissal of their appeal against these orders by the impugned order dated 01.06.2024. The petitioner's appeal under Section 253 of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 [for short, 'the BBMP Act' ] as against the Provisional/Confirmation Orders is in Appeal No.191/2023.

¶29

The proceedings under Section 248 of the BBMP Act are because the petitioner has constructed a floor beyond the sanctioned number of floors and the decision to demolish in terms of the impugned orders is because of this violation. However, the petitioner, as stated by Sri. Akash V. T., the learned counsel for the petitioner, has applied under Section

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:47901 WP No. 29599 of 2024

¶32

240(8) of the BBMP Act for approval of the additional floor.

¶33

Sri. Akash V. T. argues that the provisions of Section 240(8) of the BBMP Act enable a person who has put up construction [ even additional construction ] without a sanctioned plan to apply for approval subject to payment of penalty. The learned counsel canvasses that the petitioner’s application is yet to be considered, and when this application is pending consideration if the impugned orders are implemented, the petitioner's remedy would be rendered nugatory. Sri. Mallikarjuna Reddy K.S., the learned counsel for the respondents, is heard in the light of these submissions. The learned counsel does not dispute that the petitioner has indeed applied under Section 240(8) of the BBMP Act and that the consideration of such application is pending.

¶34

The question, whether it would be open to

¶35

the petitioner to avail remedy under Section 240(8) of

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:47901 WP No. 29599 of 2024

¶38

the BBMP Act must be considered by the jurisdictional Zonal Commissioner, BBMP [ the second respondent ] with whom the petitioner has filed an application, and when such application is pending, as rightly canvassed, if the impugned orders are implemented, the petitioner's remedy, if permissible in law, would not be available. When queried, Sri. Akash V. T. is categorical that if ultimately it is decided that the petitioner cannot have remedy under Section 240(8) of the BBMP Act, the petitioner will be constrained to remove the additional construction. In the light of the afore, the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

a. The petition stands disposed of directing

¶41

the respondents to defer further action pursuant to the impugned orders until due consideration of the petitioner's application under Section 240(8) of the BBMP Act and directing the second respondent to consider such application

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:47901 WP No. 29599 of 2024

¶44

and communicate the decision thereon within a period of three [3] months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶45

b. The petitioner will be at liberty to file a certified copy within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt thereof.

¶46

c. It is needless to observe that if ultimately it is indeed found that the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit under Section 240(8) of the BBMP Act, the authorities must act in terms of the impugned order.

¶47

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶48

Bishop Angels School v. Chief Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bishop Angels School v. Chief 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

Smt N S Gayathri Vs State of Karnataka

Dr.B. Mahendra Vs the Commissioner

Smt Shakuntala Devi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Pallavi T S Vs State of Karnataka

G T Bopaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Sri B v Mohana Vs the Commissioner