Dismissed

Sri M Ravi v. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Karnataka HC12 Aug 2024WP/502/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a writ of mandamus directing the BBMP to implement a confirmation order under Section 321(3) regarding an illegal structure. The court dismissed the petition because an appeal pending before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal had resulted in an interim stay on the confirmation order.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with liberty to agitate grievance after disposal of the appeal by the KAT.

Sri M Ravi Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:32289 WP No. 502 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.502 OF 2023 (LB-BMP)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI M RAVI SON OF LATE MUDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 9/A, 3^RD CROSS, 2^ND MAIN ROAD KAVERI NAGAR, RT NAGAR POST BENGALURU 560032

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. C SHANKAR REDDY.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by R DEEPA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE J C ROAD, KITTUR RANI CHANNAMMA CIRCLE, BENGALURU 560009 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶15

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (EAST) BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE RESIDENCY ROAD, MAYO HALL BENGALURU 560001

¶16

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER HBR LAYOUT SUB DIVISION, KALYAN NAGAR POST BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BENGALURU 560043

¶17

K.S. PRASANNA KUMAR S/O LATE R. KRISHNAIAH

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:32289 WP No. 502 of 2023

¶19

AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT RAMA TEMPLE ROAD GOVINDHAPURA, ARABIC COLLEGE POST BENGALURU - 560 045

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN REDDY K S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3 SRI. PRUTHVI WODEYAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER AND DISPOSES OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29.07.2019 AND MADE BY THE PETITIONERS ADDRESSED TO EACH OF THE RESPONDENTS, THE ANNEXURE- P TO THIS WP WITHIN A LIMITED TIME FRAME, PREFERABLY WITH 2 MONTHS AS THE MATTER IS EXTREMELY URGENT IN NATURE.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking for mandamus directing to consider and dispose of the representation dated 29.07.2019 and made by the petitioner addressed to each of the respondents vide Annexure-P to the writ petition within a limited time frame.

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:32289 WP No. 502 of 2023

¶29

Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition are

¶30

as under:

¶31

The petitioner and other sharers who had a shares in the said erstwhile property situated in Sy.Nos.35/6 and 35/5 got shares adjacent to the petitioner's property and have raised a constructions on their shares respectively. He could not raise resources to put up construction on his property. He had left it in vacant condition. When one Sri Prasanna Kumar tried to interfere with the possession of the petitioner, he had to file original suit in O.S.No.6315/2010 against the petitioner for the relief of permanent injunction. The defendant in the said suit encroached upon the portion of the property and raised illegal and unauthorized structures thereon in a high handed manner. The petitioner approached this court in W.P.No.38930/2010 for a direction to take action in accordance with law and the said writ petition was disposed off directing the respondents to take action against Sri K.S.Prasanna Kumar for raising unauthorized

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:32289 WP No. 502 of 2023

¶34

construction in his property. No sanctioned plan and license came to be issued in this behalf by the respondents. In the said suit, Sri K.S.Prasanna Kumar filed written statement. He has not pleaded in the said written statement that he had obtained sanctioned plan. The petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents to take appropriate action against respondent No.4. The respondent Municipality Corporation issued a notices under Sections 321(1) and 321(3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act’) and the same was challenged before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'the KAT'), Bengaluru in appeal No.1223/2012. The KAT allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the respondents to examine the same afresh. Respondent No.2 issued a notices on 10.08.2012 and 17.08.2012 under Section 321(1) and 321(3) of the Act alleging that without sanctioned plan and license construction is being raised by respondent No.4 and is required to be demolished. The petitioner submits that no positive action was taken pursuant to the order dated 08.07.2016. Hence,

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:32289 WP No. 502 of 2023

¶37

the petitioner made a representation dated 29.07.2019. The respondents have not taken any decision on the representation submitted by the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition.

¶38

Respondent No.4 filed the statement of

¶39

objections contending that the petitioner is abusing the process of court and law. It is contended that the petitioner has approached this Court by suppressing the material facts and without furnishing the material particulars. It is contended that, pursuant to the order passed by the KAT dated 08.07.2016 in appeal No.1223/2012, the petitioner participated in the subsequent proceedings. During the pendeny of the appeal, the petitioner and respondent No.4 entered into compromise in respect of joint family properties including the property in question. As per the compromise petition, property bearing Sy.Nos.35/5 and 35/6 measuring 9 guntas of land, which is a residential house has fallen to the share of respondent No.4 and in turn, the petitioner

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:32289 WP No. 502 of 2023

¶41

received Rs.4,50,000/- as compensation. As per the compromise petition, the petitioner agreed to take back all the complaints given by him to the authorities including the one given to the office of the BBMP. It is contended that, on the basis of the compromise petition, the judgment and decree came to be passed. It is contended that, the petitioner again filed the impleading application before the KAT in appeal No.1223/2012, by supporting the action of the BBMP and requested the KAT to confirm the order passed by the BBMP. It is contended that respondent No.3 passed the provisional order under Section 321(1) of

¶42

the Act. The petitioner submitted a reply. Thereafter, respondent No.4 passed the confirmation order dated 27.12.2019. It is submitted that, the petitioner aggrieved by the same filed an appeal in 74/2020 and the KAT

¶43

granted an interim order staying the execution and operation of confirmation order and the appeal is pending for consideration. Hence, on these ground, prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:32289 WP No. 502 of 2023

¶46

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶47

also learned counsel for respondent No.4.

¶48

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.4 has undertaken the illegal construction and the BBMP has passed the confirmation order under Section 321(3) of the Act. The respondent – BBMP is not implementing the confirmation order. The petitioner submitted a representation vide Annexure-P to take appropriate action for implementation of the order passed under Section 321(3) of the Act. No action is taken by respondent Nos.1 to 3. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.

¶49

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that respondent No.4 aggrieved by the confirmation order, preferred an appeal before the KAT and the KAT granted the confirmation order in appeal No.74/2020, which is pending. Hence, when the appeal is pending, the KAT has granted an interim order and the petitioner has no legal right to file this writ petition

¶50

¶51

NC: 2024:KHC:32289 WP No. 502 of 2023

¶52

seeking implementation of the confirmation order. Hence,

¶53

on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶54

Perused the records and considered the

¶55

submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶56

It is not in dispute that, the BBMP has issued a

¶57

provisional order under Section 321(1) of the Act against respondent No.4 and passed the order of confirmation under Section 321(3) of the Act. The said order passed by the BBMP is challenged in appeal No.74/2020 and the KAT granted an interim order staying the operation and execution of the confirmation order passed under Section 321(3) of the Act and respondent No.4 has produced a copy of the order passed by the KAT, which discloses that the KAT has stayed the confirmation order, as the appeal is pending before the KAT. In view of the same, the Court cannot issue a mandamus directing respondent Nos.1 to 3 to consider the representation vide Annexure-P for implementation of the confirmation order passed under

¶58

¶59

NC: 2024:KHC:32289 WP No. 502 of 2023

¶60

Section 321(3) of the Act. Accordingly, I do not find any

¶61

grounds to entertain theis writ petition.

¶62

In view of the above discussion, I proceed to passing the following:

¶63

ORDER

¶64

The writ petition is dismissed .

¶65

However, liberty is reserved to the

¶66

petitioner to agitate his grievance, after disposal

¶67

of the appeal by KAT.

¶68

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶69

SSB

Sri M Ravi v. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M Ravi v. 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

Dr. Vidyasagar Nanjappa Vs the Commissioner

Mr. Joseph Franklin Veigas Vs M/S Providence Builders and Developers

Smt Nalini C Vs the Commissioner

Sri Sanjay Reddy Vs the Chief Commissioner

Sri Babulal L Vs the Chief Commissioner Bbmp

Sri K Nageswara Rao Vs the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike