IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5th DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD W.P.Nos. 58123-58124 OF 2018(LB-BMP) BETWEEN:
1. Mr. Thirupathi Reddy Mandala S/o Mr. Narasimha Reddy Mandala Aged about 41 years Residing at No.84, 5th Cross 8th Main, Hoysalanagar R.M.Nagar, Bengaluru-560 016. Represented by his GPA Holder Mr. Rama Tiruvengalam Talluri S/o Mr. Hanumanjee Talluri Aged about 41 years Residing at No.5-5-33/37A Vignanpuri Colony, Kukatapally Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh-560 072. … Petitioner (By Sri. H. Sunil Kumar, Advocate) AND:
1. The Commissioner BBMP, Head Office, Hudson Circle Bengaluru-560 002.
2. The Assistant Executive Engineer Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Horamavu- Sub Division Mahadevapura Zone Jayanthinagar Circle Old Premises of Horamavu Panchayath Building Bengaluru-560113.
3. Smt. Karuna.Y W/o Mr.T. Ekambaram Naidu Aged about 48 years Residing at No.403, 8th ‘B’ Main H.R.B.R. Layout, 1st Block Kalyan Nagar, Bengaluru-560 043.
Also available at Site No.20 & 21, 16th Cross 3rd Main, ward No.25, Hoysala Nagar Horamavu, Bengaluru-560 016.
4. M/s S.V. Developers A Proprietorship Firm Having its Office at No.401, 5th Floor, Vijaya Enclave Old Madras Road Banaswadi, Bengaluru-560 043. Represented by its Proprietor Mr.B.Malleswara Rao Aged about 44 years S/o. Late Mr. Malakondaiah. ... Respondents (By Sri.Amit Deshpande, Advocate for R1 & R2: Sri. Prakash.T. Hebbar, Advocate for R3 & R4.) These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondent Nos.1 & 2 to consider representation at Annexure-F dated: 05.10.2018 regarding construction made by the respondent No.3 in her property through joint venture with respondent No.4 without sanctioned plan and building by-Laws, to take necessary action and to pass necessary orders for removal of illegal floors and extended construction of roof made towards property of the petitioner in violation of sanctioned plan, as per Law, more particularly removal of over-extended/projected roof portions on the side of petitioner’s property to that effect and etc.
These writ petitions, coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ Group, this day, the Court, made the following:
ORDER In these writ petitions the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:
“(a) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, directing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to consider representation at (Annexure-F) dated 05.10.2018 regarding construction made by the respondent No.3 in her property through joint venture with respondent No.4 without sanctioned plan and building bye-laws, to take necessary action and to pass necessary orders for removal of illegal floors and extended construction of roof made towards property of the petitioner in violation of sanctioned plan, as per law, more particularly removal of the over- extended/projected roof portions on the side of petitioner’s property to that effect; and (b) Grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case, together with cost, in the interest of justice and equity.”
2. The petitioner is the owner of the site No.22, measuring east to west 40 feet and north to south (64.3 + 64.5)/2 feet, totally measuring 2575 sq.ft. formed in Sy.No.104 (Old), New Sy.No.104/2, House List Katha No.298, present BBMP Katha No.298/22, situated at P.N.B.Enclave, Hoysala Nagar, Horamavu Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru which was purchased through a sale deed dated 04.10.2017. The petitioner has given a representation vide Annexure-F dated 05.10.2018 to the Assistant Executive Engineer, BBMP complaining that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are constructing a house contrary to the sanctioned plan and building bye-laws. Since the Corporation has not taken any action he approached this Court.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the Corporation submitted that the representation dated 05.10.2018 vide Annexure-F as regards the alleged violation, the Corporation will consider the representation in accordance with law. In respect of the complaint regarding the obstruction of light and air is concerned, his remedy is to approach the civil court. Hence, if a reasonable time is granted, his representation at Annexure-F will be considered for alleged encroachment.
4. In view of the above submission, these writ petitions are disposed of directing the Corporation to consider the representation of the petitioner vide Annexure-F dated 05.10.2018 in respect of alleged encroachment of the third and fourth respondents, in accordance with law, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/- JUDGE Cm/-