IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.51679/2019 (LB-BMP) Between:
1. Shri K. Umesh, S/o Late N. Krishnappa, Aged 48 years.
2. Smt. N. Gowri, W/o K. Umesh, Aged about 37 years.
Both are R/at No.26/2B, Gangamma Gudi Temple Complex, Jarakbande Kaval, B.B.M.P., Ward No.11, Jalahalli Post, Bengaluru – 560 013. … Petitioners (By Sri Girish M.K., Advocate) And:
1. The Commissioner, Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, N.R. Square, Bengaluru – 560 002.
2. The Joint Commissioner, Yelahanka Range, Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, Byatarayanapura, Bengaluru – 560 092.
3. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Vidyaranyapura Sub-Division, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, No.26, I Block, Vidyaranyapura Main Road, Bengaluru – 560 097. … Respondents (By Sri K.V. Mohan Kumar, Advocate) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the orders dated 10.09.2018 passed under Section 321(1) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 vide Annexure-F and dated 19.09.2018 passed under Section 321(3) the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 vide Annexure-G passed by the R-3 and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court, made the following:
ORDER Petitioners are stated to be owners of property bearing katha No. 26/2B at Jarakbande Kaval, now falling within Ward No.11 of BBMP.
2. It is submitted that as per the orders passed under Section 321(3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act’) by the respondent – BBMP, petitioners were asked to remove the illegal construction put up. Petitioners further submit that as against the order under Section 321(3) an appeal has been preferred under Section 443-A of the Act before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.1075/2018 and the same is at the stage of arguments. It is further submitted that though the matter has been set out for arguments on the main petition, efforts are on to demolish the property without awaiting the outcome of the appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent – BBMP submits that if the petitioner prosecutes the appeal diligently and does no seek for any adjournment, they would take action only after the disposal of Appeal No.1075/2018.
4. In light of said submission of learned counsel for respondent – BBMP and taking note of the undertaking by the petitioners, petition is disposed off as not requiring any further orders.
Sd/- JUDGE VP