IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI WRIT APPEAL NO.978 OF 2018(LB-BMP) BETWEEN:
SRI HANUMANTHARAYAPPA B AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS SON OF LATE BILIYAPPA RETIRED EMPLOYEE RESIDING AT NO AMR 22 A M G ROW HOUSE S F H S NANDINI LAYOUT BENGALURU-560 096. … APPELLANT (BY SRI. D L JAGADISH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR MS. VAIBHAVI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHA NAGARA PALIKE N R SQUARE BENGALURU-560 002.
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MAHALAKSHMIPURAM SUB-DIVISION BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHA NAGARA PALIKE WARD NO. 43 BENGALURU-560 096. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRIYUTHS V SREENIDHI, N K RAMESH, ADVOCATES) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07/02/2018 IN WP No.3106/2018(LB-BMP) PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T Aggrieved by the order dated 7.2.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.3106 of 2018 in dismissing the writ petition, the writ petitioner has filed this appeal.
2. A notice under Section 321(1) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act was issued to the petitioner. He did not reply to it. Thereafter, an order under Section 321(3) of the Act was issued. The same was challenged before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The proceedings were upheld. Thereafter, the instant petition was filed. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the Tribunal has recorded a finding that there is a 100% violation in the ground floor, 135% FAR, 185.85% North to South in the sanction plan. That the petitioner has not even replied to the notice issued to him under Section 321(1) of the Act. Therefore, the learned Single Judge having observed that there is substantial material to indicate the violation of the sanction plan, was of the view that no relief could be granted.
3. Sri D.L.Jagadish, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant’s counsel submits that the order of the learned Single Judge is erroneous and interference is called for.
4. On hearing learned counsels and on perusal of the material on record, we find no merit in this appeal. It is noticed that substantial violations have been committed by the appellant. The violations committed by the appellant has been extracted in the order of the learned Single Judge. The violations are more of 100%. Even the length in north-south in the sanctioned plan is in excess of 1.50 meters. Hence, under these facts, we have no hesitation to hold that no error has been committed either by the Tribunal or by the learned Single Judge which calls for interference. There is a gross violation of the building plan.
5. Under these circumstances, the Corporation is directed to do the needful, forthwith, to bring the building plan in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
Writ appeal is disposed off.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE rs