IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY WRIT PETITION NO.50455 OF 2015 (LB-BMP) c/w WRIT PETITION NO.21863 OF 2015 (LB-BMP) IN W.P.NO.50455/2015:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. T.T.RAMACHANDRA S/O LATE SRI.T.V.THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YARS RESIDING AT NO.150, IST FLOOR 11TH CROSS, VYALIKAVAL BENGALURU – 560 003 (BY SRI.C.S.KUMAR, ADV.,) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT M.S.BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001 …PETITIONER 2. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU – 560 001 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE MALLESHWARAM DIVISION JALADARSHNI EXTENSION J.S.R. NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 054 4. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE MALLESHWARAM SUB-DIVISION EAST PARK ROAD, 11TH CROSS MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU – 560 003 5. THE ASST. ENGINEER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE (ENGINEERING) WARD OFFICE NO.64 PARSI GARDEN, SWIMMING POOL EXTN MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU – 560 003 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.SRINIDHI, AGA, FOR R-1, SRI. K.N.PUTTEGOWDA, ADV., FOR R2-5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE AUTHROITIES OF THE R2 AND 5 TO CONSIDER THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER AS DEMANDED BY HIM IN HIS REPRESENTATIONS DATED 13.07.2015 AND 23.09.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, A2, A3 AND B.
IN W.P.NO.21863/2015:
BETWEEN:
SMT. T.T.DEVAKI W/O H.HANUMANTHARAJU AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NO.149, 11TH CROSS VYALIKAVAL, MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE – 560 003 (BY SRI.MARIGOWDA, ADV.,) AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE CITY CORPORATION NEW BBMP, BANGALORE 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BBMP, MALLESHWARAM SUB-DIVISION MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE – 560 003 3. SRI. T.T.RAMACHANDRA S/O T.V.THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT NO.150, I FLOOR 11TH CROSS, VYALIKAVAL BANGALORE – 560 003 …PETITIONER 4. THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.N.PUTTEGOWDA, ADV., FOR R1 & 2) SRI. C.S.KUMAR, ADV., FOR R3 SRI. SRINIDHI.V., AGA, FOR R-4, THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BYTHE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN APPEAL NO.882/2004.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER In these writ petitions, petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order vide Annexure-A dated 26.02.2015 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in Appeal No.882/2004 and also to direct the 4th respondent to consider the application filed by the petitioner to regularize the unauthorized constructions in terms of the notification No.UDD 556 MyAPRa 2013 (1) Bangalore dated 28.05.2014.
2. It is submitted by the petitioner that petitioner was issued notice under Section 321 (3) of KMC Act and the same has been challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.882/2004 under Section 443-A of the KMC Act. 1976. The Tribunal by its order dated 26.02.2015 dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru City, petitioner is before this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the building is 50 years old measuring 18 X 11 feet it has been covered by putting up canopy. He also requested the Corporation to come and inspect to find out whether there is violation as per Annexure-H. It is stated, there is encroachment and the action was initiated on the basis of the complaint made by his neighbourer. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal is to be interfered and direction is to be issued to regularize the construction. Till the disposal of the above proceedings by this Court impugned order is to be stayed.
4. In the complaint made to the corporation complaining illegal encroachment or violation made by the petitioner, it is submitted that if the petitioner is not directed to rectify the violation by demolishing the existing portion, the neighbour would be put to great hardship.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Government order permitting regularization is not applicable to the petitioner.
6. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records.
7. When there is specific statutory provisions the same should be applicable even to the case of the petitioner. If the petitioner has violated which is stated by the Corporation authorities themselves then the action has to be taken. As per the submission, it is not for this Court to interfere. It is submitted that the petitioner has constructed in front of the old house without obtaining plan and hence, I do not think the notification on which reliance is placed by the petitioner for regularization would apply.
8. In the circumstances, I do not find any good reasons to interfere in the petition filed in W.P. No.21863/2015, accordingly the same is dismissed. In view of dismissal of writ petition No. 21863/2015 the connected W.P. No.50455/2016 also stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE HR