Disposed

Smt. Bindu Ramanan v. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Karnataka HC9 Dec 2024WP/5683/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition challenging illegal construction and the petitioners' application, leaving all questions for consideration in the applicant's statutory appeal. The petitioners were granted liberty to seek impleadment in that appeal.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition and application are disposed of leaving questions for consideration in the applicant's statutory appeal with liberty to petitioners to seek impleadment.

Smt. Bindu Ramanan Vs Bruhat Bengaluru… — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:50669 WP No. 5683 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 5683 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. BINDU RAMANAN W/O MR S.G.LAKSHMI NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.191/192 ROYAL SHELTERS LAYOUT 4^TH CROSS, DEVARACHIKKANAHALLI BENGALURU-560 076

¶10

MISS UDAYA KUMARA D/O MR M.S.KUMAR AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.191/192 ROYAL SHELTERS LAYOUT 4TH CROSS, DEVARACHIKKANAHALLI BENGALURU- 560 076

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY SRI. KEERTHI PRASAD D.C., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BBMP HEAD OFFICIE CORPORATION CIRCLE HUDSON CIRCLE BENGALURU -560 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶16

THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER BOMMANAHALLI BRUHAT BENGALURU

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:50669 WP No. 5683 of 2024

¶19

MAHANAGARA PALIKE

¶20

BENGALURU -560 076

¶21

THE JOINT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING BBMP, BOMMANAHALLI, WARD NO.175 BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BOMMANAHALLI BENGALURU -560 076

¶22

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING BBMP, BOMMANAHALLI WARD NO.175 BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BOMMANAHALLI BENGALURU- 560 076

¶23

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BBMP SUB-DIVISION BBMP, BOMMANAHALLI WARD NO.175 BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BOMMANAHALLI BENGALURU- 560 076

¶24

SRI GOPALAKRISHNA MAJOR IN AGE R/AT NO.190 ROYAL SHELTERS LAYOUT 4TH CROSS, DEVARACHIKKANAHALI BENGALURU -560 076 …RESPONDENTS

¶25

MRS.ZOHRA JABEEN W/O ZIYAULLAH S., AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS RESIDING AT OPULENCE APARTMENT NO.104, NO.8, KHAN STREET

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:50669 WP No. 5683 of 2024

¶28

BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU-560 004 …PROPOSED RESPONDENT

¶29

(BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1- R5 V/O DATED: 10.04.2024, PETITION AS AGAINST R6 IS REJECTED;

¶30

SRI M.R.RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI.ANAND P. FOR PROPOSED R7 IN I.A 1/24)

¶31

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECTING CONCERNED RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 5 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 15.12.2023, 31.01.2024, BOTH 7.2.2024 AT ANNEXURE B, C, D AND RESPECTIVELY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶32

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

¶33

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶34

ORAL ORDER

¶35

The petitioners' own property adjacent to the

¶36

property owned by the applicant [the proposed seventh respondent], and the petitioners have filed

¶37

this petition for directions to the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike [BBMP] and its officers to act upon different representations filed by them and to remove the alleged illegal construction by the

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:50669 WP No. 5683 of 2024

¶40

applicant. On behalf of the BBMP, it is placed on record that with the initiation of the proceedings under Section 248 of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 [for short 'BBMP Act' ],

¶41

the applicant has commenced a suit in O.S. No.1919/2024 resulting in certain injunction against action.

¶42

Presently, the applicant [the proposed

¶43

seventh respondent] has filed a memo placing on record that with the BBMP filing the Written Statement and an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; that the civil Court has listed the suit for hearing on the application under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC; that the applicant has availed the statutory remedy as against the Confirmation Order under Section 253 of the BBMP Act and such appeal is yet to be registered.

¶44

Sri M R Rajagopal, the learned Senior

¶45

Counsel for the applicant, relying upon the afore,

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:50669 WP No. 5683 of 2024

¶48

submits that the petition could be disposed of with liberty to the applicant to pursue the statutory remedy, and as regards the status of construction by the seventh respondent, the learned Senior Counsel is categorical that the construction is completed and occupied. Both Sri Keerthi Prasad D C, the learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri Pawan Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondents-BBMP are heard in the light of these submissions.

¶49

These learned counsels submit that the petition could be disposed of as is now requested with Sri Keerthi Prasad D C stating that this Court may reserve liberty to the petitioners to implead themselves in the appeal filed by the applicant. Sri M R Rajagopal is categorical that he has advised the applicant to withdraw the suit so that the applicants' grievance is examined in the statutory appeal. In the light of these submissions, the following:

¶50

¶51

NC: 2024:KHC:50669 WP No. 5683 of 2024

¶52

ORDER

¶53

The petition and the application in I.A. No.1/2024 stand disposed of leaving open all questions to be considered in the applicant’s appeal with liberty to the petitioners to seek their impleadment in the said appeal observing that the merits of such application shall be considered by the Appellate Authority strictly in accordance with law.

¶54

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶55

AN/-

Smt. Bindu Ramanan v. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Bindu Ramanan 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. R. Yatish Ramalingaiah Vs the Bbmp Commissioner

Sri K Swarup Kumar Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Shantha Bai Vs the State of Karnataka

Hotel Paraag Limited Vs the Commissioner

Smt M Shanthamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. N. Narasimhaiah Vs the Commissioner