IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.1411/2019 (LB-BMP) Between:
Smt. Sangeetha Arun Kumar W/o S.K.Arun Kumar Aged about 51 years Occ.: Home Maker R/at No.7, Pride Orchid Whitefield Road Tubarahalli Bengaluru – 560 066.
Rep. by her GPA Holder Sri. A. Manjunath S/o R. Aurnachalam Aged about 40 years R/at 10th Main, Bandappa Garden Muthyala Nagara Bengaluru – 560 054. ... Petitioner (By Sri. B.S.Nagaraj, Advocate) And:
1. The Commissioner Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Hudson Circle, N.R.Square J.C.Road, Bengaluru – 560 002.
2. The Assistant Executive Engineer Yelahanka Sub-Division Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Bengaluru – 560 064.
3. Sri. N. Charles S/o Anandam Aged about 48 years 4. Smt. No. Shantha Kumari W/o N. Charles Aged about 40 years Both R3 and R4 are r/at No.20, Karunya Villa Ganesh Layout Near Srinidhi Layout Vidyaranyapura Post Bengaluru – 560 097. … Respondents (By Ms. Prathima V. Advocate for C/R1 Sri. B. Ramesh, Advocate for C/R3 & R4 Sri. Ashwin S Halady, Advocate for R1 & R2) This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the Annexure-A i.e., the order dated 14.12.2018 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru (CH-2 PRE) in Appeal No.840/2017, erroneously dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner herein, which was filed under Section 443 of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 and also Annexure-B i.e., the order passed by the respondent No.2, the Assistant Executive Engineer, under Section 321 (3) Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 dated 13.06.2017.
This Writ Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The petitioner claims to be the owner and is in actual possession of the property in site Nos.27 and 28, Katha No.562/27/28, carved out in Sy.No.25/1 measuring 5.00 acres of Chikkabettahalli Village, Yalahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk.
2. The respondent – BBMP had issued a notice against the petitioner under the provisions of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (‘the Act’ for short) and an order under Section 321(3) of the Act had come to be passed, wherein the petitioner was directed to remove the illegal construction in site Nos. 27 and 28. The said order was challenged before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.840/2017. However, the said appeal came to be dismissed and the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal has been challenged before this Court. The petitioner has filed a memo, which reads as follows:
“It is submitted that, the petitioner herein is the owner in possession of Site bearing Nos.27 and 28, and she has no objection to remove the construction within 30 days, leaving behind the compound wall constructed by the petitioner in her site.
It is submitted that, because of the illegal construction made by the respondent Nos.3 and 4, in said site No.27, it appears to the Authorities that, these petitioner only have constructed the said illegal construction in site No.27.
Wherefore, the petitioner undertakes to remove the wooden goods lying within the compound wall of the said sites within 30 days, in the interest of justice and equity.”
3. The said undertaking to remove the construction is the subject matter of the order passed under Section 321(3) of the Act. In light of the memo filed and the undertaking, for all practical purposes, the order passed under Section 321(3) of the Act would be complied with. No further orders are required to be passed.
4. Recording the contents of the said memo and also taking note of the undertaking by way of memo filed by respondent Nos.3 and 4 that they would also remove construction in site No.27 measuring to an extent of about 436 Sq.ft., which is stated to have been constructed with permission of the petitioner within a period of 30 days after the petitioner removes the construction as per her memo filed, no further orders are called for.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent-BBMP states that by virtue of the parties agreeing to remove the construction as per their memos and there would remain no illegal construction, accordingly, no further orders are required to be passed.
6. Accordingly, petition is disposed of.
All other contention of the parties as regards their entitlement and relief are kept open to be adjudicated before the Civil Court in pending proceedings.
Sd/- JUDGE NR/-