IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION Nos.25132-25136/2015 (LB – BMP) BETWEEN:
1. Mr. S. Jagadish Chandra, Aged about 73 years, S/o. late Rama Chandra Rao, No.2170, 2nd Floor, 16th E-Cross, D-Block, Shakaranagara, Bengaluru – 560 092.
2. Mr. M. Palaniappan, Aged about 64 years, S/o. late Masimalai, No.2183, 16th E-Cross, D-Block, Shakaranagara, Bengaluru – 560 092.
3. Mr. M.K. Prasad, Aged about 61 years, S/o. Mr. Krishna Iyengar, No.7, Defence Colony, Shakaranagara, Bengaluru – 560 092.
4. Mr. L. Krishnamurthy, Aged about 63 years, S/o. late Rama Rao, Aged about 61 years, No.6, Defence Colony, Shakaranagara, Bengaluru – 560 092.
5. Mr. A. Shivarama Setty, Aged about 60 years, S/o. M. Ashwathaiah, No.2167, 16th E-Cross, D-Block, Shakaranagara, Bengaluru – 560 092. …Petitioners (By Sri. Ganesh Bhat Y.H., Advocate) AND:
1. Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, J.C.Road, Bengaluru – 560 002. Represented by its Commissioner.
2. The Assistant Director of Town Planning, Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, Yelahanka Circle, Byatarayanapura, Bengaluru – 560 092.
3. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Ward No.8, Shakaranagara, D-Block, Bengaluru – 560 092.
4. Smt. Alivelamma E., Aged about 50 years, D/o. Sri. Anjanappa, Residing at No.300, 13th Cross, Mahalakshmipuram, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru – 560 086.
5. Sri. Murali K.S., Aged about 42 years, S/o. Sri. K.M. Sathyanarayana Shetty, Proprietor of M/s. Nandi Builders & Developers, No.177/A, 7th B–Main, 22nd Cross, 3rd Block, Jayanagar, Opp: NMKRV College, Bengaluru – 560 011. ...Respondents (By Sri. Ashwin S Halady, Advocate for R1 to R3) These Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to direct respondent No.1 to consider the representations dated 24.01.2015, 10.02.2015 & 20.02.2015 respectively at Annexures – H, J, K & L respectively submitted by the petitioners and take appropriate action against respondent Nos.4 and 5 with reference to the constructions being put up in the schedule property in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 and etc.
These Writ Petitions coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Petitioners who are stated to be the owners and in peaceful possession and occupation of the residential property morefully described in the petition have sought for initiation of appropriate action by the respondent-
BBMP as regards the construction being put up by respondent Nos.4 and 5. It the submitted that respondent Nos.4 and 5 are putting up construction contrary to the sanctioned building plan and contrary to the provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) as are applicable. Petitioners states, in that regard representations have been made to the respondents- BBMP as per Annexures – H, J, K and L.
2. Upon notice to the respondents- BBMP, learned counsel Sri. Ashwin S. Halady appearing for the respondents-BBMP has filed Statement of objections and submits that notice has been issued under Section 308 of the Act and after following the procedure prescribed, order has been passed under Section 321 (3) of the Act directing respondent Nos.4 and 5 to remove the illegal construction. It is further submitted that proceedings have been initiated under Section 462 of the Act for demolition of the illegal construction. Copies of the relevant orders are produced along with the Statement of objections at Annexures R1 to R7. Though notice is issued to respondent Nos.4 and 5, notice has not been served on the said respondents.
3. However, taking note of the stand taken by the respondent-BBMP and noting that action has been initiated on the basis of the complaint of the petitioners, no further orders are called for. Moreover, respondents- BBMP has acted upon on the representation of the petitioners at Annexures – H, J, K and L. Accordingly, petitions are disposed of requiring no further orders.
As no direction prejudicial to the interest of respondent Nos.4 and 5 is being passed, it is not necessary to await service of notice on respondent Nos.4 and 5.
Sd/- JUDGE SV