1/4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI W.P.Nos.44473/2017 & 44478/2017 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN 1. SMT. JIGISHA W/O SURESH KUMAR JAIN AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT. No.1078, 5TH CROSS 4TH MAIN RAOD, K.N. EXTENSION YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE-560022.
2. SRI. NAVARATHAN KUMAR S/O N. MANGILAL JAIN AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT. No.574/14, 9TH CROSS GOKUL 1ST STAGE, YESHWANTHPUR BANGALORE-560022.
...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M.S. BHAGWAT, ADVOCATE) AND 1. BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER BANGALORE-560001.
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE MATHIKERE SUB-DIVISION, WARD No.36(04) BANGALORE-560 054.
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.M. VENKATA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 –R2 SRI. A.K. VASANTH, AGA FOR R3) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN APPEAL No.7/2010, ON THE FILE OF HON’BLE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE AND FROM THE RESPONDENTS ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Mr.M.S.Bhagwat, Adv. for petitioners. Mr.T.M.Venkata Reddy, Adv. for R-1 and R2. Mr.A.K.Vasanth, AGA, for R3.
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (KAT), Bengaluru, in its order dated 28.05.2016 did not decide the question of jurisdiction of the Respondent authority of the BBMP to issue notice under Section 321 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act’) though such an issue was specifically raised in the Memorandum of Appeal and was pressed before the said Tribunal. He also sought to rely upon certain judgments in this regard.
2. From the bare reading of the impugned order passed by KAT, it does not appear that the issue with regard to the jurisdiction of the Authority concerned to issue such notice under Section 321 of the Act was raised and pressed before the said Appellate Tribunal itself.
3. Therefore, the petitioner should first approach the same Tribunal by way of Review Petition, if the question was raised before the Tribunal and has not been dealt with by the Tribunal.
4. The present petitions are disposed of with a liberty and direction to the petitioners to file a Review Petition before the Tribunal and the said Tribunal is expected to decide the Review Petition in accordance with law. If the Review Petition is filed within 30 days, the objection of limitation will not be taken by the Tribunal.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal below, the demolition of the property was stayed by a status-quo order. Therefore, interim protection may be extended for a period of 30 days.
6. The prayer seems to be justified and therefore, if it was so, it is directed that for a period of 30 days from today the status-quo order with regard to the property of the petitioner shall be maintained. After the period of 30 days, the same would abide by the further orders to be passed by the Tribunal itself.
Writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE TL Sl.No.30