IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L NARAYANA SWAMY AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR W.A. NO. 4247 OF 2015 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN:
SRI. MARAPPA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, S/O SRI. THIPPAIAH, RESIDING AT SY. NO. (OLD NO.87), NEW NO.145, BEHIND KEB QUARTERS, 100 FT. RING ROAD, VEERABHADRANAGARA EAST, HOSAKEREHALLI VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560 085.
REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER:
SRI. R. PRABHUDEVASWAMY …APPELLANT (BY SRI. H.V. DEVARAJ, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE NOW KNOWN AS BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, CORPORATION OFFICE, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU -560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
2. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CHANDRA LAYOUT (SUB-DIVISION), AND DELEGATED AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, NOW KNOWN AS BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BENGALURU -560 040.
...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DEVENDRAPPA. H, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 17873/2015 DATED 25/08/2015 CF SUFFICIENT APPEAL IN TIME.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, NARAYANA SWAMY J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Notice issued to the appellant for deviating from plan and also for contravention under Section 321 (1) and (3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. The same has been challenged before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the appeal, which was challenged before the learned Single Judge in WP No.17873/2015 and the said writ petition came to be dismissed on 25.08.2015. Hence this appeal.
2. Learned counsel submitting that the building which is the subject matter was put up in the year 1990 and there is no deviation from the plan and the petitioner has made reply to the show cause notice, but the objections has not been considered and rejected. The rejection was challenged before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has also not considered the same. Under these circumstances, the submission is that non consideration of the representations or the objections has resulted in arbitrariness. Hence he filed this appeal.
3. It is submitted, the consideration is to be with reference to the sanctioned plan which was issued in the year 1990. Since it was revenue land the Tahsildar who was competent had issued notice and has dropped the proceedings.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the materials placed on record and also the order of the learned Single Judge. The only question raised by the appellant is non consideration of his response made to the notice issued under Section 321(1) of the Corporation Act and it is his case that it was a revenue land for which Tahsildar was a competent authority. When these are all materials placed, there should have been consideration in the light of the objections raised. We hold that though there is consideration by the respondent by rejecting, that is required to be reconsidered. Since the grounds taken by the appellant have not been effectively considered.
Instead of keeping this appeal pending, we hold that it is appropriate to dispose of this appeal directing the appellant to submit one more set of objections which was made pursuant to the show cause notice within a period of one week, from thereafter within one month it has to be considered and appropriate orders to be passed without getting influenced by the order passed by the Tribunal and also the learned Single Judge. Liberty is reserved to the appellant to challenge the same, if he is advised so.
5. With this observation, the appeal stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE ykl