Disposed

Sri Madhukar v. the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Karnataka HC13 Jun 2024WP/4343/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner complained to BBMP about adjacent owner's construction violating the sanctioned plan and bye-laws. BBMP undertook to consider the representation. The Court disposed of the writ petition directing BBMP officials to decide the representations dated 20.12.2016 in accordance with law expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents 2 and 3 (BBMP) to consider the petitioner's representations dated 20.12.2016 (Annexures D to G) in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

Sri Madhukar Vs the Bruhat Bengaluru… — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:21052 WP No. 4343 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4343 OF 2017 (LB-BMP)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI MADHUKAR S/O. HARIDAS NAMBIAR AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS OCC: ASSISTANT DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF NURSING KUWAIT CENTRE FOR MENTAL HEALTH R/O. KUWAIT BY HIS GPA HOLDER SRI. SUDEEP S/O. MADHUKAR NAMBIAR AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS OCC: ORTHOPEDIC SURGEON R/O. 788/112, 3^RD MAIN ROAD 4TH BLOCK, 58TH CROSS RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-10.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A (BY SRI. YOGESH L HIREMATH.,ADVOCATE) Location: HIGH AND: COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

THE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER BENGALURU.

¶11

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER RAM MANDIR SUB DIVISION BBMP, SIR M VISWESHWARAIAH COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, 12TH MAIN ROAD 2ND BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU-10.

¶12

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:21052 WP No. 4343 of 2017

¶13

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER RAM MANDIR SUB DIVISION BBMP, SIR M VISWESHWARAIAH COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, 12TH MAIN ROAD 2ND BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU 10.

¶14

SRI. ASHOK JAIN S/O. LATE. KESRI MALJI AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS OCC: BUSINESS R/O. NO. 787/113, 3^RD MAIN ROAD 4TH BLOCK, 58TH CROSS RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU – 10.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI.PAWAN KUMAR ., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3: NOTICE TO R4 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO 3 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED:20.12.2016 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-D TO F AND IN FURTHERANCE OF THE SAME DIRECT THE R-1 TO 3 TO TAKE ACTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT AND BUILDING BYE-LAWS BY SPECIFYING THE TIME LIMIT.

¶18

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of

¶21

the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶22

“Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:21052 WP No. 4343 of 2017

¶24

20.12.2016 produced as Annexures D to F and in furtherance of the same direct the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to take action in accordance with the provisions of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act and Building bye-laws by specifying the time limit.”

¶25

The case of the petitioner is that he is the resident of Rajajinagar, Bengaluru and he is the owner of the property bearing No.788/112, 3^rd Main Road, 4^th Block, 58^th Cross, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru. Respondent No.4 is the owner of the adjacent property of the petitioner bearing No.787/113, 3^rd Main Road, 4^th Block, 58^th Cross, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru. The respondent No.4 obtained a plan from the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (for short, ‘BBMP’) for construction of the building. He started construction, violating the building plan and building byelaws of the BBMP, without leaving a setback and he is constructing more than six floors. Therefore, the petitioner lodged a complaint, dated 20.12.2016 vide Annexure-D to the Commissioner, BBMP, Bengaluru for taking action, in accordance with the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act,

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:21052 WP No. 4343 of 2017

¶28

1976 (for short, ‘the KMC Act’). The representation/ complaint submitted by the petitioner are produced as Annexures D to G, dated 20.02.2016. Despite giving a complaint vide Annexure D and giving representations vide Annexures E to G, the respondents have not taken any action. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶29

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent – BBMP submits that if the representation/complaint vide Annexures D to G are not considered, the same will be considered in accordance with law.

¶30

In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of, directing respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to consider the representations submitted by the petitioner, dated 20.12.2016 vide Annexures D to G, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

¶31

Sd/JUDGE

¶32

Cm/-

¶33

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37

Sri Madhukar v. the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Madhukar 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

Smt S Padvathamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri T v Sreenivas Vs the Executive Officer

Smt Anni Saldanha Vs the Additional Commissioner East

Yeshodamma Vs the Commissioner

Smt. S Vasundara Vs Rudresh

Smt Rathanamma Vs the State of Karnataka