IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.49765/2019 (LB-BMP) Between:
Mr. Albert Sampath Kumar David, Aged about 80 years, R/at No.46, Easther Harmony Estate, N. Naganahalli, Kothanur Post, Bengaluru – 560 077. … Petitioner (By Sri Suresh S. Lokre, Advocate) And:
1. The Commissioner, B.B.M.P., Nrupathunga Road, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. The Joint Commissioner, East Range, B.B.M.P., Mahadevapura, Bengaluru.
3. The Assistant Executive Engineer, B.B.M.P., Horamavu Range, Bengaluru.
4. Mr. Joseph Simon, R/at No.286, 2nd Cross, Ganapathy Layout, Horamavu Agrahara, Bengaluru – 560 043. … Respondents (By Sri K.V. Mohan Kumar, Advocate for R1 to R3; Sri K.N.Purushothama, Advocate for R4) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India, praying to allow the above writ petition and direct the R-3 to immediately inspect the premises of the R-4 and initiate action under Section 321(1)(2)(3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, demolish and remove any such encroachment or illegal construction or violation of the sanctioned plan area violated by the R-4 forthwith and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of mandamus to direct the respondent no.3 to initiate action under Section 321 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 as regards to the construction put up by the fourth respondent.
2. Upon notice, the fourth respondent as well as respondent nos.1 to 3 are represented.
3. The learned counsel for respondent-BBMP has filed a memo and has produced the copy of order passed under Section 321 (3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (“the Act”, for short). The order under Section 321 (3) of the Act is self-explanatory and records that construction is being carried out without obtaining the sanctioned plan.
4. In the light of action taken by the respondent- BBMP and further undertaking that they would take further action pursuant to the order under Section 321 (3) of the KMC Act in accordance with law, the relief sought for at prayer (b) and the grievance sought to be redressed is taken to be satisfied and hence no further orders are required to be passed. Insofar as the additional prayer for the court to direct respondent no.3 to supervise implementation of orders of this court and also to ensure the respondent authorities to act, it is noted that in the light of undertaking by the counsel for the respondent, the present proceedings cannot be stretched so as to result in supervising the court on day-to-day basis, the action of BBMP as sought for. The submission on behalf of the respondent-BBMP being made is evidenced by the action taken. There is no reason to conclude that the respondent-BBMP would not act as undertaken. Taking note of the order passed under Section 321 (3) of the Act, the petition is disposed off as requiring no further orders. The contentions of the parties are however kept open.
In the light of disposal of the petition, no orders are required to be passed on the pending applications.
Sd/- JUDGE Np/-