IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH WRIT PETITION NO.57873 OF 2016 (BDA) BETWEEN:
B.H. GANGAIAH AGED 64 YEARS S/O LATE HONNAPPA R/AT NO.22/2, 17TH CROSS AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI BENGALURU-560 079.
AND:
... PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANANTHA NARAYANA B.N., ADV.,) 1. BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER NO.20, KUMARAPARK WEST BENGALURU-560 020.
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NO.1, WEST SUB-DIVISION BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VIJAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 040.
3. BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER N.R. SQUARE BENGALURU-560 002.
4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER GOVINDARAJANAGAR SUB-DIVISION BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE M.C. LAYOUT, 4TH MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 040.
... RESPONDENTS [By SRI. AJAY KUMAR M., ADV., FOR R1 & R2 SRI. I.G. GACHCHINAMATH, ADV., FOR R3 & R4] THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO THE NOTICE DATED 4.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NO.1, WEST SUB- DIVISION BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY I.E., THE R-2 HEREIN AND THE NOTICE DATED 5.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER GOVINDARAJANAGAR SUB-DIVISION, BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, I.E., THE R-4 HEREIN AS PER ANNEXURE-K & L BE QUASHED BY ISSUE OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner is aggrieved by the issuance of notice by the BDA in terms of the Annexure-K and the notice issued by the BDA in terms of the Annexure-L wherein the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why action should not be initiated for encroaching upon the corporation property. A reply has been submitted to both the authorities. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though the reply has been furnished, there is no effective orders passed by the respondents.
2. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I’am of the view that appropriate relief requires to be granted.
3. In view of the above, both the authorities are directed not to take any precipitative action until and unless the petitioner is heard and an appropriate order is passed. Till then, the petitioner shall not be dispossessed or not to demolish any construction in the property in question.
4. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off.
5. The petitioner to appear before the respondent No.3-Commissioner, Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike on 12.06.2017.
In view of disposal of the writ petition, I.A.No.1/2017 for extension of interim order does not survive for consideration, the same stands disposed off.
SD/- JUDGE PMR