IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.55042 OF 2018 (LB – BBMP) Between:
Dr. B. N. Adinarayana Aged about 60 years Occ. Former Assistant Director (A.H. and V.S) No.1555-A, 16th A Main Road 2nd Phase, J. P. Nagar Bengaluru – 560078. ... Petitioner (By Smt. Archana Murthy .P., Advocate) And:
1. The Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagar Palike J.P. Nagar Sub-Division, J.P.Nagar Ward Office Bengaluru – 78.
Rep. by its Commissioner 2. Shankar .N S/o. Late. T. Narasimha Murthy Aged about 39 years R/at 72/73, 8th Main Sarakki, Old Post Office J.P.Nagar, 1st Phase Bengaluru – 78. ... Respondents (By Sri. N. K. Ramesh, Adv. for R1) This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the R-1 to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 24.11.2018 and 01.12.2018 vide Annx-B and C respectively and etc.
This petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner has filed the present petition alleging that respondent No.2 is putting up a construction in Site bearing No.1555-B without leaving setback in violation of the By-law as well as the sanctioned plan and petitioner has made representation regarding the same to the respondent No.1-BBMP.
2. Sri. N. K. Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1- BBMP has filed a memo bringing to the notice of this Court that the sequence of events and also that the Authorities after having conducted inspection and having found that the construction is in violation of the sanctioned plan, had issued notice to the owner which was followed up with a provisional order under Section 321(1) and (2) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred as ‘Act’ for short). It is further stated that on 29.12.2018 a confirmation order under Section 321(3) of the Act was issued and hence the respondent No.1 Authorities have taken action. However, it is submitted that subsequently appeal has been filed before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred as ‘KAT’ for short) in Appeal No.1166/2018 and the owner of the building who is alleged to have committed violation has obtained an order of stay which is still in force till the next date of hearing i.e., 11.03.2019. Learned counsel for the BBMP states that necessary steps would be taken to seek for the expeditious disposal of the appeal and the BBMP Authorities would ensure that objections are filed and co-operate in the expeditious disposal of the proceedings.
3. Taking note of the same, no further orders are called for in the present writ petition. As pointed out by the BBMP Authorities, action has been taken and confirmatory order under Section 321(3) of the Act has been passed and further action cannot be proceeded with, in view of the proceedings before the KAT, wherein an interim order has been passed.
4. Noticing the undertaking of the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent No.1 to co-operate in expeditious disposal of the appeal before the KAT, present petition is disposed of as requiring no further orders. However, the petitioner is at liberty to implead himself in the proceedings before the KAT if permissible under law. All the contentions are left open to be pursued by the petitioner.
Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SN/-