IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV W.P.NOS.7752-7755/2019(LB-BMP) BETWEEN:
1.Sri.Jayakumar H, 71 years, S/o Late H.Narsimha Murthy Rao 2. Mrs. Dharmambal, 66 years, W/o Mr. Jayakumar H 3.Mr.Sheshaprasad, 57 years, S/o Late Subhanarsimha Shastry 4. Mrs.Gayathri, 54 years, W/o Sheshaprasad All are R/at No.14/2, New No.30, 2nd Cross, Maruthi Extension, Bangalore – 560 021.
….Petitioners.
(By Sri.Ravindra Prasad B, Advocate) AND:
1.The Commissioner, Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, N.R. Square, Bangalore -560002.
2. The Assistant Revenue Officer, Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, Ward No.65, Bangalore – 560003.
3. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, Ward No.65, Bangalore – 560003.
4. Mrs. C.P.Vijaylakshmi, 62 years, W/o Mr. Keshavaiah, R/at No.13, 2nd Cross, Maruthi Extension, Bangalore – 560021.
…. Respondents.
( By Sri. Omkar Kambi, Advocate for R1 to R3, R4 – Notice dispensed with) These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct respondent Nos.1 to 3 to consider the representation dated 07/01/2019 filed by the petitioners vide Annexure-H etc.
These petitions coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following;
ORDER Petitioners are the owners of property bearing No.14, Old No.112/B-12, situated at 2nd Cross Road, Maruthi Extension, Bangalore. They had made a representation to the respondent- authority(BBMP) stating that respondent No.5 was carrying out illegal construction.
2. Learned standing counsel for the BBMP has entered appearance and has filed a memo dated 15/03/2019 enclosing a copy of the notice issued to respondent No.4- Smt. Vijayalakhsmi, u/s.308 of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976. Copies of the provisional orders under the provisions of Section 321(1) and 321(2) of the said Act have also been filed.
3. Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 states that the said provisional orders have been confirmed by passing an order u/s.323(3) of the said Act, on 28/01/2019. He further states that consequential action would be initiated in accordance with law.
4. In the light of the documents placed on record by way of a memo dated 15/03/2018, the grievance of the petitioners has been addressed. Accordingly, no further orders are called for. Notice to respondent No.4 is dispensed with, in light of the writ petitions being disposed of without issuing any positive directions so as to prejudice the rights of the respondent No.4. Taking on record the documents filed by the counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and noticing that action has been taken as regards the representation of the petitioners, these petitions are disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Msu