IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 27TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH WRIT PETITION NO.50062 OF 2012(BDA) BETWEEN:
THE PRESIDENT OF SENA VIHAR OWNERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTED BY BRIG (RETD) KANBARGIMATH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, S/O LATE SHRI SHIV SHANKER S.KANBARGIMATH, RESIDING AT J.-538, SENA VIHAR, KAMMANAHALLI MAIN ROAD, KALYAN NAGAR P.O., BENGALURU – 560 043. ... PETITIONER (BY MS.NIDHISHREE B.V., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY(BDA) REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU – 560 020.
3. ARMY WELFARE HOUSING ORGINATION REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KASHMIR HOUSE, RAJA JI MARG, NEW DELHI – 110 011.
4. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002.
5. LT.COL(RETD) SK CHAKRAVARTY NO.403, FIFTH BLOCK, 8TH MAIN, SECOND CROSS, HBR LAYOUT, BENGALURU – 560 043. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI T.S.MAHANTHESH, AGA FOR R1 SRI C.R.GOPALASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI B.V.MURALIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4 SRI H.N.NARENDRA DEV, ADVOCATE FOR R5 R3 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) ***** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE CANCELLATION OF ORDER OF R2 DATED 20.11.2012 COPY OF THE SAME IS ATTACHED AS ANNEXURE-A ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The plea of the petitioner is that the construction has been put up on the property in question in accordance with law. However, based on complaints made to the second respondent-BDA, an amendment was carried out to the layout plan. Housing scheme was approved earlier.
2. The primary contention of the petitioner is that without even hearing them, no such change can be carried out. That admittedly they are residents of the same locality. Without hearing them, under the guise of the impugned order, two gates are sought to be demolished.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 firstly contends that the petitioner has no locus-standi because they are not the allottees. That the land in question has been allotted to the 3rd respondent.
4. However, the learned counsel is unable to show as to whether even notice was issued to the 3rd respondent. Apparently even if the contention is to be accepted, a notice should have at least been issued to the 3rd respondent. Be that as it may, any change of plan would necessarily involve persons who are affected by it. Not only the 3rd respondent, but even the petitioner would stand affected by it. There is no reason as to why the respondent- BDA have not issued notice to the petitioner or for that matter at least to respondent No.3.
Under these circumstances, the petition is allowed. The order dated 20-11-2012 vide Annexure-A issued by 2nd respondent BDA is quashed. In case the respondent- BDA intends to change the plan or otherwise it shall hear the 3rd respondent and the petitioner and all those who are interested in the same and thereafter pass necessary orders.
SD/- JUDGE Rsk/-