Sri P Babu Vs the Bengaluru Development Authority

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICES DATED 5.3.2019 AND NOTICE DATED 20.8.2019 BOTH ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND H RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:26387 WP No. 44800 of 2019

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

The petitioner has challenged show cause notices bearing no.¸ÀA.¨ÉA.C¥Áæ/rªÉÊJ¸ï.¦/«PÁ¥À&eÁzÀ/ s SPG-464/18-19 dated 05.03.2019 issued by respondent No.2 and bearing No.¸ÀA.¨ÉA.C¥Áæ/rªÉÊJ¸ï.¦/eÁzÀ/464/18-19 dated 20.08.2019 issued by respondent No.2.

¶22

The petitioner contends that he is the owner of a property bearing House List.No.260, Site No.24 carved out of Sy.No.39/4 of Kammanahalli, Kacharakanahalli Panchayat, Bengaluru North having purchased it in terms of sale dated 06.02.1995. He claims that the property was assessed to Municipal Tax and he has obtained electricity connection. He claims that he received a notice from the respondent No.2 dated 05.03.2019 calling him to produce documents in respect of the property claimed by him in Sy.No.39/4. He claimed that he sent a reply informing the respondent No.2 that he had purchased the property measuring 30 x 24 square feet from

¶23

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:26387 WP No. 44800 of 2019

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

Chinnappa in terms of a sale deed dated 06.02.1995. However, a subsequent notice was issued by the respondent No.2 calling upon the petitioner to appear before him. The petitioner claims that he sent a reply to the respondent No.1 producing therewith certain documents. He contends that the respondents have no right in respect of the property claimed by him and this is evident from the fact that in response to an application filed under the Right to Information Act, 2005, as to whether the land in Sy.Nos.39/3 and 39/4 was acquired and used up for formation of a layout, the respondents had informed that possession of the land in Sy.Nos.39/3 and 39/4 was not taken and no layout was formed. The petitioner is therefore before this Court challenging the said notices.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have not taken possession of the land in Sy.Nos.39/3 and 39/4 of Kammanahalli and they have not formed any layout, the impugned notices issued by the respondent No.2 is without the authority of law. He however contends that the petitioner has replied to the said notices, but

¶27

4 -

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:26387 WP No. 44800 of 2019

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

no steps are taken to decide the objections raised by the petitioner.

¶31

The learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that even before the reply of the petitioner would be considered, the petitioner has approached this Court and therefore, the respondents have not considered the objections. He submits that if reasonable time is granted, the respondent No.2 would consider the objections and pass appropriate orders.

¶32

A perusal of the impugned notices would show that they were innocuous inasmuch as, by the said notice, the respondent No.2 called upon the petitioner to furnish documents in support of his claim to a site formed in Sy.No.39/4 of Kammanahalli. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to have produced those documents and he should have allowed respondent No.2 to determine the objections. The impugned notices are therefore not justiciable and it is for the petitioner to appear before respondent No.2 and establish that he has a right to continue in possession of the property.

¶33

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:26387 WP No. 44800 of 2019

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

In that view of the matter, this petition deserves to be disposed of directing the respondent No.2 to consider the objections filed by the petitioner to the show cause notices dated 05.03.2019 and 20.08.2019 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. In order to enable the respondent No.2 to do so, the petitioner is directed to furnish a fresh copy of the reply dated 26.08.2019 and 15.03.2019 to the respondent No.2 within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondent No.2 shall pass an appropriate order as stated above.

¶36

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶37

BKN

¶38

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54

Sri P Babu v. the Bengaluru Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri P Babu v. the Bengaluru Development Authority

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

Sri K Ashwanthnarayana Vs the Commissioner

B G Udyog Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Mana Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Hamara Shelters Private Limited Vs the Commissioner

Sri Narayana N Vs State of Karnataka

R.Srirama Vs the State of Karnataka