IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.4262/2016 (LB-BMP) Between:
Sri B.C. Umesh, Aged about 61 years, No.185/B, Devanathachar Street, 5th Main Road, Chamarajapet, Bengaluru – 18. … Petitioner (By Sri V. Ramesh Babu, Advocate for M/s. Chalapathy & Srinivas) And:
1. The Commissioner, Bruhat Bengaluru Maha Nagara Palike, N.R. Square, Bengaluru – 02.
2. The Executive Engineer, Bruhat Bengaluru Maha Nagara Palike, Raja Rajeswarinagara, Bengaluru – 98.
3. Sri K. Appaji, S/o Late Kenchaiah.
4. Dr. Pushpalatha B.S., W/o Sri K. Appaji.
Both r/at No.20, 15th Cross, E & F Block, Health Colony, Ramakrishnagar, Mysore – 570 022. … Respondents (By Sri I.G. Gachchinamath, Advocate for R1 & R2; Sri P. Suresh, Advocate for R3 & R4) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India, praying to direct the R-2 to enforce the construction in accordance with the sanctioned plan and issue further instruction to demolish the illegal construction which is constructed contrary to the sanctioned plan building byelaws and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner had sought for a direction against the respondent – Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to ensure that construction of building by respondent Nos.3 and 4 was in accordance with the sanctioned plan and had also sought for necessary direction to the respondent – BBMP to demolish the illegal construction which was contrary to the plan, building bye-laws and other applicable laws.
2. Learned counsel appearing for respondent – BBMP had filed their statement of objections and state that pursuant to the facts brought to their notice regarding illegal construction by respondent Nos.3 and 4, the proceedings were initiated under Section 321 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (‘the Act for brevity) and further, as per the order passed under Section 321(3) of the Act, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-R3, action was taken and an order of confirmation was passed.
3. It is further submitted that as per Annexure-R5, pursuant to the order under Section 321(3) of the Act, the proceedings were initiated under Section 462 of the Act for demolition. However, it is submitted that subsequently respondent Nos.3 and 4 had preferred an appeal, bearing No.723/2016 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal.
4. In light of the said developments, the prayer sought for does not survive for consideration. It is noted that the respondent – BBMP has acted on the complaint and taken further action.
5. Recording the undertaking that respondent – BBMP will take further action in accordance with law against respondent Nos.3 and 4, as long as there is no restraint for such exercise of power, this petition is dismissed.
6. The assertion of learned counsel for the petitioner that there is violation of interim order passed by this Court by respondent Nos.3 and 4 is kept open to be considered in appropriate proceedings and it is up to the respondent – BBMP to take appropriate action in accordance with law, if a case is so made out.
VGR Sd/- JUDGE