IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NO.3903 OF 2016 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN:
VISHAL B. SATYAMURTHY SON OF SRI. B.S. SATHYAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.84, 2ND CROSS 4TH MAIN, PADMANABHANAGAR BANGALORE-560 070.
REPRESENTED BY HIS GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI.B.S. SATHYAMURTHY SON OF BHEEMASENA RAO AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.84 2ND CROSS, 4TH MAIN PADMANABHANAGAR BENGALURU -560 070 ... APPELLANT (BY SRI.S. RAMA MURTHY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R. SQUARE BENGALURU-2.
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE PADMANABHANAGARA SUB DIVISION BBMP BUILDING PADMANABHANAGARA BENGALURU-560 070. ... RESPONDENTS THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No. 31486/16 DATED 29/08/2016.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The case of the writ petitioner is that on 01.03.2014 he received a plan sanction from the respondent – Corporation for putting up a building. Thereafter on 10.03.2014 a notice was served on him to show cause as to why the deviated portion of the building should not be demolished. Thereafter directions were issued to the Corporation to submit a report. A joint spot inspection was conducted and a report was submitted indicating that there was deviation as alleged in the notice. Therefore, the petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the report of the joint spot inspection cannot be accepted and that there is no direction to demolish the deviated portion.
3. On hearing learned counsels, we do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. In response to a direction issued by this Court, a spot inspection was conducted and the petitioner was also present at the time of inspection and the report has been submitted. The report indicates that there are violations. What is the extent of violation and issues related there to cannot be a subject matter of this appeal. It is suffice to hold that there are deviations and the deviated portion of the building is liable for demolition. We find that the impugned order is a well considered order passed by the learned Single Judge. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE NG* CT:bms