IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 27th DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NOS.3451-3452 OF 2016 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN:
1. SRI. NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS SON OF LATE NARASIMHAIAH @ PUTTANARASAPPA.
2. SMT. UMA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS WIFE OF NANJAPPA.
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.15, V.P. ROAD, 2ND CROSS MADIWALA,BENGALURU - 560 068.
... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. M. MADHUSUDAN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. V. VISWANATHA SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE HUDSON CIRCLE, N.R. ROAD BENGALURU - 560 002.
2. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, MADIWALA SUB DIVISION, WARD NO.66, BENGALURU - 560 063.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.SREENIDHI, ADVOCATE) THESE APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NOS.31740 OF 2016 AND 32246 OF 2016 DATED 7.6.2016.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT By the order dated 2.4.2016, the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the petitioners on the ground that they have violated the sanctioned plan by not leaving set-back on all the four sides of the building. The same was challenged in the instant writ petitions.
2. A submission was made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the State Government is contemplating to grant relief to all such persons, who have put up construction in opposition to the sanctioned plan. The learned Single Judge was of the view that on merits, there is no reason to interfere with the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and there is no material to indicate that the State has passed any law for regularization of such illegal and unauthorized constructions. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeals are filed.
3. On hearing the learned counsels, we are of the view that there is no merit in these appeals. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners before the learned Single Judge was that a final decision would be taken with regard to the law being made by the State for regularization of illegal and unauthorized construction. Since the same has not taken place and no further contention has been advanced, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge.
Consequently, the appeals are dismissed on merits as well as on delay.
Pending applications stand rejected.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE SA