IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.16309/2019 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN:
Dr. S.M.Sharath Chandra, Aged about 56 years, S/o. Col. S.M.Sreekanta, Residing at No.2/14, Paritosh Complex, Next to KHB Shopping Complex, New Town Yelahanka, Bengaluru-560 064. ... Petitioner (By Sri. K.S.Bheemaiah, Advocate) AND:
1. The Commissioner, Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, N.R.Square, Bengaluru-560 001.
2. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, Yelahanka New Town Sub-Division, Bengaluru-560 063.
3. Sri. Sai Sunder Pandey, Aged about 28 years, S/o. Dr. A.K. Pandey, Both are residing at No.12, Supporting Staff Quarters, REVA University Campus, Rukmini Knowledge Park, Kattigenahalli, Yelahanka, Bengaluru-560 064. ... Respondents (By Sri. K.N.Puttegowda, Advocate for R1; Sri. Ashwin S Halady, Advocate for R1 & R2; Sri. Mohan Bhat, Advocate for R3 & R4) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the R-
3 and 4 to stop all further construction activities forthwith, and further direct the R-1 and 2 to file report regarding the same, before this Hon’ble Court and etc., This Writ Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner states that he is the owner of property on the opposite side of the third and fourth respondents’ property. The petitioner states that he has represented to the respondent-Authority stating that owners of the property bearing No.1216 are carrying on construction contrary to the sanction plan and had sought for appropriate action to be initiated.
2. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 -BBMP has filed the statement of objections and states that necessary action had been taken as against the construction of the building by respondent Nos.3 and 4. It is stated that notice under Section 308 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (‘the Act’ for brevity) had been issued, followed up by the provisional order under Section 321(1) and (2) of the Act and finally, an order under Section 321(3) of the Act had been passed on 23.03.2019. Hence, it is submitted that action on their behalf has been taken.
3. It is also submitted that the third and fourth respondents have approached the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and obtained an interim order of stay on 29.03.2019, as against the order passed under Section 321(3) of the Act.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, points out that the order of stay is subject to the condition that third and fourth respondents would not continue with the construction work of the building. It is however, alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even subsequent to passing of the interim order, third and fourth respondents have continued construction. However, noticing that action has been taken by the respondent-BBMP by passing the order under Section 321(3) of the Act, no further orders are called for. However, if violation of the interim order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal is brought to the notice of the respondent-BBMP, the respondent- BBMP to take appropriate action.
5. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file an impleading application for being impleaded before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, if the same is permissible under law. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of subject to the above observations.
Sri. Mohan Bhat, learned counsel states that he has filed vakalath on behalf of the third and fourth respondents, said submission is noted.
Accordingly, petition is disposed of subject to the above observations.
Sd/- JUDGE RB