1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI WRIT PETITION No.56841 OF 2015 (LB-BMP) Between:
Smt.B.J.Nalini W/o H.Hanumanthaiah Aged about 34 years R/at No.11, 8th Main , ‘B’ Cross Karekallu, Kamakshipalya, Bangalore 570079. …Petitioner (By:Ms.P.C.Sunitha, Advocate) And:
1. Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike N.R.Road, Bangalore – 560 002. Represented by its Commissioner.
2. The Assistant Engineer Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Ward No.101, Kamakshipalaya Rajajinagar, Bangalore 560010.
3. The Town Planning Officer Planning Division, Rajajinagar 560010 Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike 4. Smt.Shanthamma W/o late Krishnappa Aged about 70 years R/at new No.6 and 7 (Old No.143), 8th Main, B Cross, Karekallu Kamakshipalya, Bangalore 560 079.
5. Sri K.Ravindra S/o late Krishnappa Aged about 45 years R/at new No.6 and 7 (Old No.143), 8th Main, B Cross, Karekallu Kamakshipalya, Bangalore 560 079.
6. Sri K.Ramesh S/o Late Krishnappa Aged about 45 years R/at new No.6 and 7 (Old No.143), 8th Main, B Cross, Karekallu Kamakshipalya, Bangalore 560 079. …Respondents (By:Mr.K.N.Puttegowda, Advocate for R1 to R3 Mr.Boja Raj, Advocate for R4 to R6) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for records and quash the endorsement dated 13.7.2015 issued by the R2 vide Annexure- H and etc.
This W.P. coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Ms.P.C.Sunitha, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr.K.N.Puttegowda, Advocate for R1 to R3 Mr.Boja Raj, Advocate for R4 to R6 This Writ Petition is filed against the Endorsement Annexure–H dated 13.7.2015 issued by the respondent – Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) asking the petitioner to get the title over the property in question belonging to the petitioner cleared and without that, in view of the civil dispute pending between the parties in O.S.No.9808/2015 in the Court of City Civil Judge, Bangalore and as stated in para-5 of the Writ Petition itself, the respondent – BBMP cannot proceed against the private respondent Nos.4 to 6 against their alleged illegal construction, as pointed out by the petitioner.
2. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that these matters cannot be adjudicated upon in an extraordinary Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as determination of facts has to be undertaken and the civil suit is the only appropriate remedy. In view of this, the Writ Petition is held to be not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed.
3. In view of the dismissal of the Writ Petition, I.A.No.1/17 does not survive for consideration and the same is accordingly disposed of.
VGR Sd/-
JUDGE