Disposed

Sri Honnegowda v. the Chief Commissioner

Karnataka HC27 Aug 2024WP/4604/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this municipal planning dispute, the High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition where the petitioner sought action against a building violator. Finding that the BBMP had already initiated proceedings and passed a confirmation order, the court dismissed the petition while reserving liberty to challenge that specific order.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of with liberty reserved to challenge the confirmation order dated 26.08.2024.

Sri Honnegowda Vs the Chief Commissioner — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:34828 WP No. 4604 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 4604 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI HONNEGOWDA S/O LATE NANJUNDAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS PRESENLY R/A NO.1065, 8^TH BLOCK GIDADHAKONENAHALLI, SMV LAYOUT BENGALURU-560091 …PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. M. VEERABHADRAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N R SQUARE, BENGALURU-560002

¶12

Digitally signed by R DEEPA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER BOMMANAHALLI ZONE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE OFFICE AT: BDA COMPLEX KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560034

¶14

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING BOMMANAHALLI ZONE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BOMMANAHALLI RANGE OFFICE BEGUR ROAD, BENGALURU-560068

¶15

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ARAKERE SUB DIVISION, WARD NO.193,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:34828 WP No. 4604 of 2024

¶18

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE MICO LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560076

¶19

SRI H B SHIVALINGAIAH S/O LATE H B BORALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS PRESENTLY R/A NO.338/337/350/4/2/53/3-Y SOMESHWARA LAYOUT HULIMAVU, ARAKERE, BENGALURU-560068

¶20

ALSO AT: NO.1235, 25^TH A MAIN, 9^TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560069

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4 SRI. G. VIKRAM, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT R1 TO R4 TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONERS COMPLAINT/REPRESENTATION DATED 2.12.23 AS PER ANNEXURE-A IN TERMS OF LAW AND DIRECT THEM TO INITIATE THE PROCEEDING U/S 248 AND 356 OF BBMP ACT, 2020 AND PASS ORDER AGAINST THE R5 FOR HAVING VIOLATED THE BBMP BYELAW AND SANCTIONED PLAN DATED 30.8.2019.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:34828 WP No. 4604 of 2024

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking for the following reliefs:

¶30

a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, directing the respondent No.1 to 4 to consider the petitioner's complaint/representation dated 02.12.2023 as per Annexure-A in terms of law and direct them to initiate the proceeding U/s 248 and 356 of BBMP Act, 2020 and pass order against the 5^th respondent for having violated the BBMP byelaw and sanctioned plan dated 30.08.2019.

¶31

b) To issue a writ or mandamus or any other appropriate writ, directing the respondent No.1 to initiate the proceeding U/s 248 of BBMP Act 2020 against the 5^th respondent and to pass appropriate order to remove the illegal structure which is constructed in violation of sanctioned plan dated 30.08.2019 and BBMP Byelaws and to remove the commercial establishments which are carrying the business contrary to the 2^nd condition of the sanctioned plan dated 30.08.2019, in accordance with law as per Annexure-B.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:34828 WP No. 4604 of 2024

¶34

Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition are as under:

¶35

Respondent No.3 sanctioned the building plan dated 30.08.2019 to respondent No.5 to construct residential building to Stilt, Ground and Second floor in the schedule property. Though sanctioned plan stipulates certain terms and conditions, on prima facie, no commencement certificate or occupancy certificate is issued as required under Sections 240 and 246 of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 (for short 'the BBMP Act, 2020') by respondent No.1. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 knowing fully that respondent No.5 constructed the building in violation of BBMP byelaws and sanctioned plan and used the same for commercial purpose no proceeding is initiated though it is mandatory under the statute and prevailing law. Respondent No.5 having constructed the building in violation of byelaws and sanctioned plan, on vengeance he got filed a complaint through his wife and filed W.P.No.22011/2023 against the petitioner's son. The petitioner supplied certain information under the Right To

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:34828 WP No. 4604 of 2024

¶37

Information Act, 2005 and based on the same, the petitioner filed detail complaint before respondent Nos.1 to 4 and to initiate action against respondent No.5 under the provisions of BBMP Act, 2020. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 have not initiated any action under the provisions of the BBMP Act, 2020. Hence, this writ petition.

¶38

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned

¶39

HCGP for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and learned counsel for respondent No.5.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.5 is undertaking a construction in violation of the sanctioned plan and BBMP byelaws. The petitioner has submitted a complaint for initiating action under the provisions of the BBMP Act, 2020 against respondent No.5. The officials of respondent No.5 have not taken any action on the representation submitted by the petitioner. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the writ petition.

¶41

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:34828 WP No. 4604 of 2024

¶42

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1

¶43

to 4 submits that respondent Nos.1 to 4 have already initiated the proceedings under the provisions of Section 248 of the BBMP Act, 2020 and confirmation order was passed on 26.08.2024. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 produced the copies of confirmation order along with memo marked as Annexure-R2. Hence, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶44

Learned counsel for respondent No.5 submits that the petitioner has filed this writ petition as a counter blast to the writ petition filed by respondent No.5 against the petitioner's son. The wife of respondent No.5 filed the writ petition against the son of the petitioner, who has constructed a building by violating the sanctioned plan and further, the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the alleged illegal construction of respondent No.5. Hence, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶45

Perused the records and considered the

¶46

submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:34828 WP No. 4604 of 2024

¶49

It is not in dispute that the petitioner filed the

¶50

writ petition seeking a mandamus directing respondent Nos.1 to 4 to consider the complaint submitted by the petitioner. On receipt of the complaint submitted by the petitioner, they have initiated proceedings under Section 248 of the BBMP Act, 2020. The provisional order was passed on 05.08.2024. Thereafter, respondent No.5 filed an objection before the BBMP. The BBMP has passed an order under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act on 26.08.2024, as the complaint of the petitioner has been addressed by the respondent - BBMP. In view of the same, nothing survives for consideration in this writ petition.

¶51

9. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶54

However, liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to challenge the confirmation order dated 26.08.2024, if so advised, in case the petitioner and respondent No.5 challenge the said order before the appellate authority.

¶55

¶56

NC: 2024:KHC:34828 WP No. 4604 of 2024

¶57

All the contentions of the parties are kept open, including the locus standi of the petitioner .

¶58

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶59

SSB

Sri Honnegowda v. the Chief Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Honnegowda v. the 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

Sri Doddananjappa Vs the Sub Registrar

Sri Avinashgowda D. M., Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Lakshmamma Vs Sri Appanna

Palegowda G B Vs State of Karnataka

S Ramesh Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Halgo Ads Vs the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike