Dismissed¶29

Sri. Swamy v. the Commissioner Bengaluru Development Authority

Karnataka HC8 Jan 2025WP/7978/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (Bengaluru) DB, WP No. 7978 of 2021 (LB-RES-PIL), NC: 2025:KHC:670-DB, decided 08-01-2025; PIL by two residents seeking demolition of alleged illegal construction by private respondent (Smt. R. Nandhini) over public road and civic amenity site; mandamus under Articles 226/227 to Commissioners of BDA and Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike to consider representations (Annexures N and P); BBMP show-cause notice already issued to owner of alleged illegal construction; petition dismissed as not surviving/infructuous; show-cause notice to be taken to its logical end in accordance with law; no findings on merits.

What did the court decide?

The petition is liable to be disposed of, with the observation that the show-cause notice issued by BBMP shall be taken to its logical end in accordance with law. ¶29

Sri. Swamy Vs the Commissioner Bengaluru… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:670-DB WP No. 7978 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 7978 OF 2021 (LB-RES-PIL)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SRI SWAMY S/O SRI GURU MALLAPPA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/A NO.10, 3^RD CROSS PIPELINE ROAD, J.C. NAGAR MAHALAKSHMIPURAM BENGALURU - 560 086

¶8

Digitally signed by AMBIKA H B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶9

SRI KRISHNE GOWDA S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/A NO.861, 34^TH MAIN ROAD 5^TH CROSS, J.C. NAGAR NANDHINI LAYOUT BENGALURU - 560 096

¶10

(BY MS. DIVYA N, ADVOCATE FOR SRI T. SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

AND :

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HAVING OFFICE AT KUMARA PARK WEST

¶14

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:670-DB WP No. 7978 of 2021

¶15

T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD BENGALURU - 560 020

¶16

SMT. R. NANDHINI W/O SRI C. SURESH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT NO.109, FLAT NO.T-2, 3^RD FLOOR MCC VASATHI SAMUCHYA 1^ST CIRCULAR ROAD DOLLARS COLONY NANDHINI LAYOUT BENGALURU - 560 096

¶17

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE HUDSON CIRCLE BENGALURU - 560 002

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(SRI G. LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT No.1 MS. DEVI SOWMYA L, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT No.2 SRI AMITH DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT No.3)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT/ ORDER/DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 3 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER WHICH ARE FOUND AT ANNEXURE - N AND P, FURTHER THEY BE DIRECTED TO DEMOLISH THE ILLEGAL STRUCTURE PUT UP BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 OVER PUBLIC PROPERTY i.e., ON THE PUBLIC ROAD AND ALSO ON THE CIVIC AMENITY SITE & ETC.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

¶23

NC: 2025:KHC:670-DB WP No. 7978 of 2021

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)

¶27

Learned advocate Ms. Divya N appearing for the petitioners invited attention of the Court to the prayer made in this public interest petition whereby, the respondents were sought to be directed to consider the representation of the petitioners and to demolish illegal structure put up by respondent No.2.

¶28

Today when the petition came up for consideration, learned advocate for the petitioners stated that the petition is not required to be prosecuted any further in view of the fact that the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) has already issued show-cause notice to the owner of the alleged illegal construction.

¶29

The petition is liable to be disposed of, however, with the observation that the show-cause notice shall be taken to its logical end in accordance with law.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:670-DB WP No. 7978 of 2021

¶32

4. This Court has not gone into the merits nor has expressed

¶33

any opinion on the merits of the petition.

¶34