IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR WRIT PETITION No.35927/2017 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN SRI K. G. MANJUNATH S/O LATE K R KRISHNAPPA, AGED 54 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, MELEKOTE, KANAKAPURA TOWN, RAMANAGARA MAIN ROAD, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562117.
(BY SRI K.G.SADASHIVAIAH, ADV.) AND 1. THE COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU BRUHATH MAHANAGARA PALIKE, HUDSON CIRCLE, N R SQUARE, BENGALURU-560002.
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, GALI ANJANEYA SWAMY SUB-DIVISION, BASAVESHWARA LAYOUT, 3RD MAIN ROAD, ... PETITIONER KAILASESHWARA TEMPLE, ATTIGUPPE, BENGALURU-560069.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H.DEVENDRAPPA, ADV.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE DTD.13.1.2015 VIDE ANNEX- E TO THE W.P ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ‘PRELIMINARY HEARING’ THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the confirmation order passed by the palike under the provisions of Section 321 (3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) and the order of the Appellate Authority confirming the order passed by the BBMP.
3. The facts in brief are that the property in question has been bequeathed in favour of the petitioner by his mother under a registered deed. That the sister of the petitioner instituted a suit before the City Civil Court, registered as O.S.No.7255/2010, wherein an interim order came to be passed. A request was also made by the petitioner to transfer the Khatha entries in his name. The same came to be kept in abeyance pending disposal of the suit. Further the petitioner in violation of the injunction granted by the trial Court is said to have put up the construction in the said site. The said construction put up by the petitioner without obtaining any sanction plan has led to the initiation of the proceedings under Section 321 of the Act. After notice and after hearing the petitioner, order under Section 321(3) of the Act came to be passed directing that the unauthorized construction requires to be removed. The said order is carried in an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal by order dated 10.02.2017 in Appeal No.962/2016 has been pleased to affirm the order.
4. Perused the petition pleadings there is no whisper that the petitioner has put up the construction after obtaining the sanction plan.
5. On the other hand, it is contended that it is not a paka or permanent structure and it may be dismantled by the petitioner at any point of time. The petitioner has not placed on record any material to demonstrate the same. No case is made to demonstrate any error either in reasoning or in the conclusion arrived at by the Appellate Tribunal. In that view of the matter, nothing survive for consideration in the writ petition.
Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merits stands dismissed.
After passing the above order, learned counsel for the petitioner makes a request to permit the petitioner to approach the Authorities and seek for such relief as is permissible under law. It is always open to the petitioner to approach the Authority to seek for relief whatsoever as is permissible under law.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/- JUDGE VM CT:HR