IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF JANUARY, 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B. WRIT APPEAL NOs. 3906-3907 OF 2016 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN 1. SRI RAJENDRA PREMCHAND S/O PREM CHAND HANSRAJ, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 2. SRI VIVEK PREMCHAND S/O PREM CHAND HANSRAJ, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT SHRI PARSHWA KRUPA, NO.679/1, 11TH B MAIN, RAJAJINAGAR 2ND BLOCK, BANGALORE-560 010.
... APPELLANTS (BY SRI M N MADHUSUDHAN, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER RAJAJINAGAR SUB DIVISION, WARD NO.107, BBMP, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 010.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V SREENIDHI, ADVOCATE) THESE APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN W.P. NOs.43336- 43337/2016 DATED 30.8.2016.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT These appeals are filed against the judgment and order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge, dismissing the petitions filed against the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal.
2. The Corporation issued a notice under Section 321(1), (2) and (3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, alleging violation of building by-laws and sanctioned building plan.
3. The notice was challenged by the petitioner before the Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the case.
4. When the matter was taken to this court by filing writ petitions, by order dated August 11, 2016, this court directed the Corporation to make a spot inspection of the disputed property.
5. In the inspection conducted, it appeared there has been deviation to the extent of 60.75% per centum contrary to the building by-laws and sanctioned building plan. Consequently, the Hon’ble Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions.
6. We do not find any merit in the writ appeals requiring interference of the order of the Hon’ble Single Judge.
7. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed.
8. However, it shall be open to the appellants to apply for regularization in accordance with law. We express no opinion on the merits of the matter.
9. We make no order as to costs.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE vgh*