IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD W.P.No. 21443 OF 2017(LB-UC) BETWEEN:
Ivan L.D.Almeida S/o Late. John D.Almeida, Aged about 49 years, R/at No.50, Adarsha Nagar, 2nd Cross L.R. Bande, R.T.Nagar Post, Bengaluru-560 032. … Petitioner (By Sri. Vishwajith Rai M., Advocate) AND:
1. The Commissioner Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, N.R.Square, Bengaluru-560 002.
2. The Executive Engineer Ward No.32, L.R.Bande, K.G.Halli Sub-Division, B.B.M.P., Bengaluru-560 032.
3. The Asst. Executive Engineer Ward No.32, L.R. Bande, K.G.Halli Sub-Division, B.B.M.P., Bengaluru-560 032.
4. M.D.Mahadevappa Father’s Name not known, Aged about 61years, R/at No.56, Adarsha Nagar, 2nd Cross, L.R.Bande, R.T.Nagar Post, Bengaluru-560 032. ... Respondents (By Sri. J.M.Umesha Murthy, Advocate For R1 to R3:
Sri. G.S.Patil, Advocate for R4) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct R-1 to 3 to consider the complaint dated:29.11.2016 vide Annexure-E and clear the encroachment made by R-4 and etc.
This writ petition, coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ Group, this day, the Court, made the following:
ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:
i. Call for records.
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the complaint dated:29.11.2016 vide Annexure-E and clear the encroachment made by the 4th respondent.
iii. Issue any other writ or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit under the circumstances of the case and award the costs of this petition to the Petitioner in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The petitioner is the owner of the property bearing House List No.50, katha No.444 situated at Nagavara Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. The respondent No.4, who is the adjacent owner of the property, was constructing the house contrary to the building plan. Hence, the petitioner has given a representation on 29.11.2016 vide Annexure-E to the second respondent Corporation for taking action as per the provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (for short, ‘the KMC Act’). Since the respondent has not taken any action petitioner has approached this Court.
3. The petitioner has given a representation vide Annexure- E to the Corporation on 29.11.2016. The same is not considered by the Corporation. It is pending before the authority. Under these circumstances, it is suffice for this Court to direct the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to consider the representation of the petitioner vide Annexure-E in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
4. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Cm/-