IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NO.1173 OF 2018 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN:
1. SRI MADAN LAL J.HINDUJA SON OF LATE SRI JAMNADAS H.HINDUJA AGED 77 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.211,UPPER PALACE ORCHARDS, BELLARY ROAD BENGALURU-560 006.
2. SRI RAJENDRA J.HINDUJA SON OF LATE SRI JAMNADAS H.HINDUJA AGED 70 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.211,UPPER PALACE ORCHARDS, BELLARY ROAD BENGALURU-560 006.
3. SRI DINESH J.HINDUJA SON OF LATE SRI JAMNADAS H.HINDUJA AGED 67 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.211, UPPER PALACE ORCHARDS, BELLARY ROAD BENGALURU-560 006.
THE APPELLANTS 1 TO 3 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR AUTHORISED SIGNATORY SRI SUSHIL KALRO.
... APPELLANTS (BY SRI:S.N.MURTHY, SENIOR COUNSEL ALONG WITH MS.S.ROOPASRI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R. SQUARE BENGALURU-560 002.
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER SHANTHINAGAR SUB-DIVISION BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU-560 027 3. M/S. SHERIFF AND BHATIA A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 'S & B' TOWERS NO.88, M.G. ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI:PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI:H.DEVENDRAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 21.02.2018 IN WRIT PETITION NO.14124 OF 2017; CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.12.2016 IN APPEAL NO.444 OF 2005 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU (ANNEXURE 'R') AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER BEARING NO.AEE(SN)CO/17/2004-05 DATED 14.03.2005 (ANNEXURE-M) PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
***** THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 21.02.2018 passed in Writ Petition No.14124 of 2017 by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition, the writ petitioners have filed this appeal.
2. The case of the petitioners is that they are the lessees of the part of the building in question. There were certain allegations. Notices were issued to the owner/builder for having deviated the sanction plan. The notice included the instant writ petitioners also, even though they were the tenants and lessees of the said building.
3. Objections were filed by the writ petitioners.
After considering the same, a confirmation order was passed under Section 321(3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act. The same was questioned before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal by all the lessees. The Tribunal by the order dated 17.12.2016 dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the instant writ petition was filed. The learned Single Judge on considering the application was of the view that the writ petitioners neither have any locus-standi nor cause of action to invoke the process of the Court. However, it was clarified that the tenants have also occupied the illegal parking spaces and deviated the portions of construction. That they should also bear the brunt of the order of demolition. The same is sought to be questioned herein.
4. Sri.S.N.Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants’ Counsel contends that the material on record would indicate that there has been violation of the building plan so far as the parking area is concerned. Therefore, if the same is rectified that would save the appellants. It is further contended that the lease deed would indicate an open space to be left so far as the car parking is concerned. Since the owner has violated the same, the tenants cannot be held responsible for the same.
5. However, on hearing learned Counsels, we do not find any merit in these contentions. We are of the view that the dispute between the tenants and the land owner cannot be a subject matter in this appeal. The finding that there is a violation of the plan sanction is imminent. That is not the question herein. The only plea is that the rights of the tenants have been affected. Therefore, interference is called for. However, we do not find any grounds to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
6. The order passed by the competent authority is with regard to the violation of the plan sanction. Therefore, the appellant cannot insist as to in what manner the same has to be rectified. Apparently, the building has to be brought in accordance with the plan sanction. Therefore, law has to be complied with. It is not for the writ court to hold that the petitioners should be saved. Since there is a violation of the sanction plan, no person could be allowed to stay on such a violated premises. Therefore, the contention of the appellants that they can be protected is without any basis. Hence, the said contention has to be rejected.
For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE *bgn/-