Sri M Nagaraju Vs Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROVISIONAL ORDER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 DATED 16.04.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-D, THE CONFIRMATION ORDER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 DATED 26.04.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND THE ORDER VIDE ANNEXURE-J DATED 03.09.2022 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN APPEAL NO.137/2022 AND ETC.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH

¶24

VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The petitioner has put up construction on the property which is the subject matter of the writ petition. On the allegation that the same has been constructed in violation of the building bye-laws and the sanctioned plan, the respondent authorities have initiated proceedings

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:18401 WP No. 21527 of 2022

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

against the petitioner and orders have been passed by respondent No.3 for demolition of the entire building. Aggrieved by the same, he has preferred an appeal before respondent No.2 who has also dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶32

The case of the petitioner is that he had taken necessary permissions to construct the building when the property came under the Panchayat and presently, it is with the Greater Bengaluru Authority (for short, 'the GBA'). It is also submitted that the impugned orders do not mention the amount of deviations. He also submits that presently, amendments have taken place to the building bye-laws wherein much of the construction put up by the petitioner can be saved if permission is granted to the petitioner to make necessary application to the GBA for regularization of the construction.

¶33

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents though vehemently justifies the impugned orders, candidly admits that they do not mention the exact

¶34

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:18401 WP No. 21527 of 2022

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

deviations constructed by the petitioner. It is also submitted that subsequent to passing of the impugned orders there have been amendments to the building byelaws because of which substantial construction put up by the petitioner can be saved. Hence, the following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

i. The Writ Petition is hereby disposed of.

¶39

ii. The petitioner is given four (04) weeks time from today to apply for a modified plan sanction.

¶40

iii. If such an application is made within a period of four (04) weeks, the respondents are directed to consider the request of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereafter within a period of two (02) months.

¶41