IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT APPEAL No.2637 OF 2015 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN:
SRI.P.CHANDRASHEKAR, SON OF LATE V. PANCHALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.29, SURVEY NO.17, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, KATRAGUPPE VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI JAGADEESHACHARI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU – 560 020.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (LAQ) & COMPETENT AUTHORITY, B.D.A., KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU – 560 020.
3. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DIVISION, 2ND FLOOR, B.M.T.C. BUILDING, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2, SRI LAKSHMINARAYANA, AGA. FOR R3) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.21578 OF 2013 DATED 05/08/2015 THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal is filed being aggrieved by the order dated 05.08.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.21578 of 2013. By placing reliance on Section 4(viii) of the Karnataka Regularisation of Unauthorised Construction in the Urban Areas Act 1991, the writ petition was rejected.
2. The plea of the petitioner was for regularization of unauthorized construction of the building made by him on the land belonging to the respondent – Bangalore Development Authority. His plea was rejected by order dated 28.05.1998 and confirmed by order dated 26.04.2013. The said orders were sought to be challenged in the instant writ petition.
3. In terms of Section 4(viii) of the Karnataka Regularisation of Unauthorised Construction in the Urban Areas Act, 1991, there is a bar for regularization of unauthorised construction. The said bar would stand applicable to the appellant. In these circumstances, the order of the learned Single Judge is in consonance with the facts as well as the applicable law. We find no fault with the well considered order passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE PKS