Disposed¶59

Sri T R Muniraju v. the Chief Commissioner

Karnataka HC28 Jan 2025WP/12631/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC, 28-01-2025, N S Sanjay Gowda J, WP No. 12631 of 2024 (LB-BMP): mandamus for consideration of four representations dated 26.03.2024 seeking revocation/cancellation of BBMP occupancy certificate dated 21.07.2022; BBMP bound to consider representation and act if OC incorrect or construction deviates from sanction plan; Joint Commissioner Mahadevapura Zone directed to decide within two months; Articles 226/227; petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 (Joint Commissioner, BBMP) to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders within two months; all pending interlocutory applications disposed of. ¶59

Sri T R Muniraju Vs the Chief Commissioner — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶59

Issue for consideration

Whether respondents 1-4 (BBMP officials) are bound to consider and dispose of the petitioner's four representations dated 26.03.2024 challenging the occupancy certificate, within a stipulated time. +1 more

¶45

Court's answer

When a representation is given contending that an occupancy certificate was wrongly given and requires cancellation, the BBMP must necessarily consider it and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶51

Ratio / Principle

If, on such consideration, the BBMP concludes that the occupancy certificate was given incorrectly, it must take further action, as is permissible in law, against the offending persons.

¶52

Key takeaways

If, after issuance of the occupancy certificate, additional construction has been put up, the BBMP must take necessary action, in accordance with law, in respect of the subsequent construction.ratio¶54
The Court directed respondent No.2, the Joint Commissioner, to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months.ratio¶55
If the occupancy certificates have been given incorrectly or there are constructions put up in deviation of the sanction plan, the BBMP would have to necessarily take action against the concerned.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (LB-BMP) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India: petitioner sought mandamus to BBMP (R-1 to R-4) to consider and dispose of four representations dated 26.03.2024 (Annexures V-Y), principally seeking revocation of the occupancy certificate dated 21.07.2022 granted by BBMP; further prayers included cancellation of the occupancy certificate, demolition of alleged illegal structures, action against concerned officials and a spot inspection. Held: when a representation contends that an occupancy certificate was wrongly given and requires cancellation, the BBMP must necessarily consider it and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law; if the BBMP concludes the certificate was given incorrectly, it must take further action permissible in law against the offending persons; if additional construction was put up after issuance of the certificate or deviates from the sanction plan, the BBMP must act against it. Disposition: Joint Commissioner, Mahadevapura Zone (R-2) directed to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders within two months; writ petition disposed of; pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:3730 WP No. 12631 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 12631 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI T R MUNIRAJU S/O LATE SRI N P RAMAIAH ALIAS

¶10

N.P. RAMAIAH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.27, 3RD CROSS, I MAIN, VINAYAK NAGAR, B BLOCK, KONENA AGRAHARA, BENGALURU - 560017

¶11

(SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED BY THE PETITIONER)

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. C SHANKAR REDDY., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560009.

¶17

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, MAHADEVAPURA ZONE, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BENGALURU - 560048.

¶18

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HOODI SUB DIVISION, WARD NO.85, DODDANEKKUNDI MAHADEVAPURA ZONE,

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:3730 WP No. 12631 of 2024

¶21

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,

¶22

BENGALURU - 560048.

¶23

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING, MAHADEVAPURA ZONE, HOODI SUB DIVISION, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BENGALURU - 560048.

¶24

SRI CHANDRA REDDY, SON OF LATE MUNISHAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 2491, 17TH MAIN, HAL 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560008.

¶25

FF 21 CO-LIVING SERVICE ACCOMMODATION SY NO. 58/1 KATHA NO. 1755 NEAR VIBGYOR SCHOOL, THUBARAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 066. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER

¶26

SHERWOOD LONGSTAY PRIVATE LIMITED REGD OFFICE AT NO. 672, FERNS PARADISE, 4TH STREET DODDA NEKKUNDI, BENGALURU - 560037 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTORS

¶27

(1)SRI GANESH MADHAV BALIGA,

¶28

(2) SRI RAHUL BALIGA,

¶29

(3) SHYAMLI NEMANI

¶30

(4) DEVANSHI NEMANI

¶31

M/S ADITYA BIRLA FINANCE LIMITED, A NON BANKING FINANCE COMPANY INCORPORATED AND REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT INDIAN RAYON COMPOUND, VERAVAL, GUJARAT - 362 266

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:3730 WP No. 12631 of 2024

¶34

REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR

¶35

BRANCH OFFICE AT :

¶36

M/S ADITYA BIRLA FINANCE LIMITED, NO.78, STAR AVENUE, 6TH CROSS, VICTORIA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560047 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956

¶37

…RESPONDENTS

¶38

(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN REDDY K S., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-4; SRI. CHENNAKESHAVA.B.S., ADVOCATE FOR R-5; SRI. AKASH V.T., ADVOCATE FOR R-7; SRI. RAWLEY MUDAPPA. I.P., ADVOCATE FOR R-8)

¶39

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO 4 TO CONSIDER THE DISPOSE OF THE REPRESENTATIONS (4 IN NUMBER) DTD. 26.03.2024 THE ANNEXURE-V, ANNEXURE-W, ANNEXURE-X AND ANNEXURE-Y RESPECTIVELY TO THIS WRIT PETITION PENDING BEFORE THE R-1 TO 4 HEREIN WITHIN A LIMITED TIME FRAME, PREFERABLY WITH 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT OR SUCH OTHER TIME THAT MY BE FIXED BY THIS COURT AS THE MATTER IS EXTREMELY URGENT IN NATURE, ETC.

¶40

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

¶41

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶42

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:3730 WP No. 12631 of 2024

¶44

ORAL ORDER

¶45

The prayer in this Writ Petition is for issuance of a mandamus to direct respondents No.1 to 4 to consider and dispose the four representations dated 26.03.2024 within a prescribed time period.

¶46

A further prayer is also made for cancellation of the occupancy certificate for issuing a direction to demolish the illegal structures, for direction to take appropriate action against the concerned officials and also to hold a spot inspection.

¶47

The essential prayer of the petitioner, as per the first representation, is to revoke the occupancy certificate dated 21.07.2022 which has been granted by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike ('the BBMP') on various grounds which have been raised in the representation.

¶48

In my view, when a representation is given contending that the occupancy certificate is wrongly

¶49

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:3730 WP No. 12631 of 2024

¶51

given and the same requires to be cancelled, the BBMP would have to necessarily consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶52

If, on such consideration the BBMP were to come to the conclusion that the occupancy certificate was given incorrectly, obviously the BBMP would have to take further action, as is permissible in law, against the offending persons.

¶53

Notwithstanding the above, if on the consideration of the said representation, the BBMP also comes to conclusion that after the issuance of the occupancy certificate the additional construction has been put

¶54

up, then also the BBMP would have to take necessary action, in accordance with law, in respect of the subsequent construction that it has noticed.

¶55

I, therefore, direct the respondent No.2 – Joint Commissioner to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate

¶56

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:3730 WP No. 12631 of 2024

¶58

orders within a period of two months. If, on such consideration, as already observed above, the occupancy certificates have been given incorrectly or there are constructions put up in deviation of the sanction plan, it is obvious that the BBMP would have to necessarily take action against the concerned. This Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶59

In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶60

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

¶61

HNM

¶62

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30

Sri T R Muniraju v. the Chief Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri T R Muniraju v. the Chief Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Mala N Vs the Chief Commissioner

Kaleemulla Vs State of Karnataka

Ykc Media Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Gangahanumaiah Vs the Commissioner

Smt C S Dakshayani Alias Dakshayanamma Vs the Commissioner Bruhat Bengaluru

Smt Hemavathi T S Vs the Chief Officer