Disposed

Mr Omar Farook v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC23 Oct 2024WP/7252/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition challenging unauthorized construction and lack of access. The court observed that a sanctioned building plan was approved during proceedings, rendering the petition untenable, but noted this does not prejudge the petitioner's access claims.

What did the court decide?

Disposed of. No specific relief granted as the petition no longer survives for consideration.

Mr Omar Farook Vs the Commissioner — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:42650 WP No. 7252 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7252 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR OMAR FAROOK AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, S/O A SHAKOOR NO.315, 8TH CROSS, LAKSHMI ROAD SHANTHI NAGAR BENGALURU-560026 SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. ABHINAV RAMANAND A.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by ANAND N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

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

¶14

THE JOINT COMMSISIONER TOWN PLANNING (NORTH) BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N R SQUARE BENGALURU-560002

¶15

M/S TOTAL ENVIRONMENT BUILDING SYSTEMS PVT LTD

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:42650 WP No. 7252 of 2024

¶18

SY NOS.6/1, 6/2 AND 7/2, GASTIKEMPANAHALLI VILLAGE, JAKKUR BENGALURU-560064 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR

¶19

SRI Y N KRISHNA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O LATE Y N NARAYANA SWAMY, NO.959, VOKKALIGARA STREET, YELAHANKA BENGALURU-560064

¶20

THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER BBMP YELAHANKA ZONE, BBMP DIVISIONAL OFFICE, YELAHANKA DIVISION NO.444, 5TH B MAIN ROAD, YELAHANKA SATELLITE TOWN NEW TOWN BENGALURU-560064

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN REDDY K S.,ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 AND R5;

¶23

SRI. G. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R1 AND R2 TO INITIATE NECESSARY ACTION INCLUDING DEMOLITION AGAINST THE UNAURHORIZED CONSTRUCTION BEING PUT UP IN THE SCHEDULE B PROPERTY BY THE R3 AND R4 IS VIOLATION OF LAW AND WIHTOUT ANY SANCTION PLAN BY CONSIDERING THE PETITIONERS COMPLAINT/REPRESENTATION DATED 28/11/2023 AT ANNEXURE-C.

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:42650 WP No. 7252 of 2024

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

The petitioner asserts ownership of the land bearing Sy.No.7, Presently Sy.No.7/1 [measuring 7 acres 4 ½ guntas] of Gastikempanahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru, and has filed this petition chiefly contending that the third and fourth respondents have begun construction in the adjacent property in Sy.No.6/1, 6/2 and 7/2 of Gastikempanahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru but without obtaining necessary Sanctioned Plan. The petitioner has also alleged that these respondents are using his property as access to their properties. This Court has granted an interim order restraining the third and fourth respondents from putting up any construction in the lands in Sy.No.6/1, 6/2 and 7/2

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:42650 WP No. 7252 of 2024

¶32

of Gastikempanahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli,

¶33

Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru.

¶34

Sri. Abhinav Ramanand A., the learned

¶35

counsel for the petitioner, and Sri. G. Sridhar, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents, state in unison:

¶36

• that during the pendency of these proceedings, the concerned has granted approval for the Development Plan and

¶37

building plan for construction of residential property in the land in Sy.No.6/1, 6/2 and 7/2 of Gastikempanahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru,

¶38

• that the third and fourth respondents' application for construction of certain amenities in certain portions of Sy.No.7/2 of Gastikempanahalli

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:42650 WP No. 7252 of 2024

¶41

Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru, is pending.

¶42

In fact, Sri. G. Sridhar submits that with this plan, there cannot be any restriction on the third and fourth respondents for construction of residential blocks and that the third and fourth respondents undertake not to put up any construction for the amenities unless the pending application is duly considered and permission is granted.

¶43

This Court must observe that with this turn of events and the submissions now made, the petition will not survive for consideration. As such, the petition stands disposed of but observing that this disposal shall not impede pending proceedings. At this stage, Sri. Abhinav Ramanand A. submits that this Court must also observe that the closure of proceedings as aforesaid will not prejudice the petitioner's case as regards the access to the third and fourth respondents to their properties. This

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:42650 WP No. 7252 of 2024

¶46

Court must observe that no rights are adjudicated in the proceedings and every aspect is to be considered

¶47

in the concerned proceedings.

¶48

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶49

Mr Omar Farook v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Omar Farook 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

Sparkle One Mall Developers Private Limited Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Srinivas Murthy Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Halari Visa Oswal Samaj Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Sri. H. Hanumantha Vs Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Srhi C K Subramanian Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Mr Rowland Soans a Vs the Commissioner