IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT APPEAL NO.6104 OF 2017 (LM-BBMP) BETWEEN:
MR. P.P.R. NAIR SON OF LATE SRI K.K.R. PANICKER, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, RESIDENT OF PREMISES IN NO.3367/B, 13TH MAIN ROAD, HAL 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 038.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI BHARGAVA D. BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR SRI AJIT P.B., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 027.
2. THE ADDITIONAL /JOINT COMMISSIONER (EAST) OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL/ JOINT COMMISSIONER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, MAYO HALL, BENGALURU-560 025.
3. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING-EAST, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, MAYO HALL, BENGALURU-560 025.
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING TOWN PLANNING DEPARTMENT, BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMAR KRUPA WEST, BENGALURU-560 085.
5. M/S. RAKESH PROJECTS PVT. LTD., WITH ITS OFFICE IN NO.57/1, U.P. COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR, APPA REDDY PALYA, DOUBLE ROAD, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 038, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. SANJAY JAIN.
6. MR. S.N.S. MURTHY SON OF LATE SRI SAMPIGE NARAYANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, RESIDENT OF PREMISES IN NO.3367/C, 13TH MAIN, HAL II STAGE, BENGALURU-560 038.
7. DR. RAVISHANKAR ADIGA SON OF LATE SRI SURYANARAYANA ADIGA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDENT OF PREMISES IN NO.3367/P, 13TH MAIN ROAD, HAL 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 038.
8. MR. ROGER BINNY SON OF TERENCE BINNY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDENT OF PREMISES IN NO.3373/K, 13-A MAIN ROAD, HAL 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 038.
9. MRS. PREMA ACHARYA DAUGHTER OF MR. RAMACHANDRA RAO, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, RESIDENT OF PREMISES IN NO.3367/R, 13TH MAIN ROAD, HAL 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 038.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.N. PUTTEGOWDA, ADV. FOR R-1 TO R-4; SRI NANJUNDARADHYA B.G., ADVOCATE FOR R-5;
SRI NANDAN KUMAR K.M., ADV. FOR R-6,R-7 & R-9; R-8 IS SERVED) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06/09/2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.9355 OF 2016 (LB-BBMP) AND CONSEQUENTIALLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION SETTING ASIDE THE SANCTIONED PLAN IN LP NO.AD.CON/EST/0654/14-15 DATED 31/10/2014 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE FIFTH RESPONDENT INSOFAR AS THE THIRD UPPER FLOOR IN PROPERTY [PID NO.74-1-3367/D] NO.3367/D, 13TH MAIN ROAD, H.A.L. II STAGE, WARD NO.88,BENGALURU.
***** THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition No.9355 of 2016 dated 6-9-2017 dismissing the writ petition, the petitioner No.2 has filed this appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Single Judge committed an error in dismissing the petition. That the complaint made by the petitioners to quash the sanction plan requires to be granted. The same is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents.
3. On hearing learned counsels, we do not find any merit in this petition. A complaint was lodged by the petitioners on the ground that the contesting respondent has violated the sanction plan and on various grounds. Therefore, a writ petition was filed to direct the respondents to take appropriate action. The learned Single Judge on considering the contentions came to the view that on the own-showing of the petitioners that the road width was more than 12 meters, the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 sanctioned F.A.R up-to 2.25 times. Therefore, the complaint does not appear to be in order. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that F.A.R has been given by wrongly showing the width of the road, since the width of the road was more than 12 meters. Under these circumstances, in view of the submissions made by the respondent - Corporation themselves and on the petitioners own saying that the road width was more than 12 meters, we find no error committed by the learned Single Judge that calls for interference. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.
rsk/-
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE