IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF AUGUST, 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.222 OF 2015 (LB-BBMP) BETWEEN:
1. MR.JOSEPH PETER S/O LATE HARRY JOSEPH AGE: 60 YEARS NOW R/A NO.50 5TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN MEENAKSHI LAYOUT PARAPANNA AGRAHARA VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH – 560 100 2. MR.V.SHEKAR S/O VEERASWAMY AGE: 48 YEARS NOW R/A NO.43 5TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN MEENAKSHI LAYOUT PARAPANNA AGRAHARA VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH – 560 100 ... APPELLANTS (BY MR.HAREESH T. BHANDARY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SMT.M.R.DHANALAKSHMI W/O M.N.RAMMOHAN AGE: 55 YEARS R/A NO.40-1 (5) BRUNDAVAN LAYOUT SUBRAMANYAPURA MAIN ROAD BANGALORE – 560 061 2. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE NARASIMHARAJA SQUARE J.C.ROAD BANGALORE – 560 002 3. BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TASK FORCE C/O BBMP HEAD OFFICE NARASIMHARAJA SQUARE J.C.ROAD BANGALORE – 560 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE 4. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BOMMANAHALLI DIVISION BOMMANAHALLI BANGALORE – 560 068 5. THE INSPECTOR PARAPANNA AGRAHARA POLICE STATION PARAPANNA AGRAHARA BANGALORE – 560 100 6. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BOMMANAHALLI DIVISION BOMMANAHALLI BANGALORE – 560 068 … RESPONDENTS (MR.ARUN BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R1 MR.V.SREENIDHI, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R5) ---
This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, praying to set aside the order passed in the W.P.No.19050 of 2014 dated 15.12.2014.
This appeal coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, THE CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the following:
JUDGMENT Although the writ appeal is barred by limitation, as requested by Mr.Hareesh T. Bhandary, learned advocate appearing for the appellants, we consider the writ appeal on merits.
2. By the order impugned, the Hon’ble Single Judge directed an inspection by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and directed the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike to take steps in the event there has been any violation of the building plan in making the construction.
3. The respondent No.6 in the writ petition is the appellant. He has, already, filed a suit claiming title in relation to a portion of the property, on which the construction is made.
4. An order of injunction has been obtained, only, to the extent, not to interfere with the alleged possession of the respondent No.6.
5. Admittedly, there is no order restraining the writ petitioner from making any construction. The writ petitioner has a sanctioned building plan and she is entitled to make construction, only, as per the sanctioned building plan.
6. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the writ appeal requiring interference.
7. The application for condonation of delay stands dismissed. Consequently, the writ appeal is, also, dismissed.
8. In view of the dismissal of the writ appeal, the pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration and are, accordingly, dismissed.
9. We make no order as to costs.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE RV