Disposed

Smt. Puttamma v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC13 Dec 2024WP/33704/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a BBMP closure order directing them to shut their chicken slaughtering and cold storage unit built without sanctioned plan in a residential locality abutting a Raja Kaluve. The court declined to interfere but permitted time until 31.03.2025 to dismantle the facilities and vacate, with liberty to authorities if they failed.

What did the court decide?

Time till 31.03.2025 to dismantle facilities and vacate premises; no nuisance to be caused meanwhile.

Smt. Puttamma Vs the Commissioner — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:51550 WP No. 33704 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 33704 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. PUTTAMMA W/O DODDALINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

¶9

TIPPESWAMI B S S/O SHIVAMURTHY B H AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

¶10

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT PREMISES NO. 128/144, P.S REDDY LAYOUT, PRAMODH LAYOUT HOSAKEREHALLI, RR NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560039

¶11

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N

¶12

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. RAMESH GOWDA M K.,ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER

¶17

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

¶18

ZONAL COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:51550 WP No. 33704 of 2024

¶21

(BBMP) RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560098

¶22

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR ANIMAL HUSBANDRY BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP) RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560098

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. B.S.KARTHIKEYAN, ADVOCATE)

¶25

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CLOSURE ORDER DTD. 30.11.2024 BEARING NO. SN (PP)/RRNV/PR/56/2024-25 ISSUED BY THE R-3 HEREIN TO THE PETITIONER ASKING THE PETITIONERS TO CLOSE THE UNIT OF CHICKEN SLAUGHTERING AND COLD STORAGE FORTHWITH AS PER ANNX-A; DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO GRANT LICENSE TO THE PETITIONERS TO RUN THE BUSINESS OF SLAUGHTERING LIVE CHICKEN AND COLD STORAGE.

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR

¶27

PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:51550 WP No. 33704 of 2024

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

This petition is by the tenants of premise in No.128/114, P.S. Reddy Layout ( Pramodh Layout ), Hosakerehalli, R. R. Nagara, Bengaluru. The petitioners have constructed a metal sheet structure for the purposes of a cold storage and poultry. The petitioners are aggrieved by the third respondent's closure order dated 30.11.2024 [ Annexure-A ]. The third respondent has reasoned that the petitioners must close their business because (a) they have constructed structure for the business without necessary sanctioned plan in a residential locality, (b) that they have not obtained necessary No Objection Certificate from the neighboring owners, and (c) that this construction abuts a Raja Kaluve .

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:51550 WP No. 33704 of 2024

¶34

The learned counsel for the petitioners

¶35

cannot contest any of these three grounds or that these grounds render the petitioners' activities in the subject premise impermissible. The learned counsel for the respondents who is on caveat, emphasizes that this impugned order is after this Court's order dated 01.10.2024 in

¶36

W.P.No.27144/2024.

¶37

This Court is not persuaded to interfere with the impugned order. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that if the petitioners are granted reasonable time, they will vacate. The learned counsel for the respondents is heard in the light of the afore request. This Court is of the view that the petitioners must have reasonable time to dismantle the facilities and to vacate the premises.

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:51550 WP No. 33704 of 2024

¶39

As such, the petition stands disposed

¶40

of permitting the petitioners' time till 31.03.2025 to dismantle and vacate the subject premises. If there is failure, it is needless to observe that the authorities will be at liberty to take action to remove the construction. The petitioners, during this time shall ensure that there shall be no nuisance to the residents and if there is nuisance, the authorities are directed to take action to close the business.

¶41

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶42

Smt. Puttamma v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Puttamma 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

Umashankar Vs the State of Karnataka

Bhoomanand Manay Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Rudramma Vs the Joint Commisisoner

Sarojamma Vs the Director

Sri Y Dyavappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Nithyanandan J Vs Commissioner