Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

V. Santhakumar vs The Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike on 18 December, 2021

                              1

     HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE, BENGALURU
               BEFORE THE MEGA LOK ADALAT

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                    CONCILIATORS PRESENT:

            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA

                              &

               SRI. M.N. UMASHANKAR, MEMBER


                 WP.No.12078/2021 (LB BMP)
                  (Lok Adalat No.3261/2021)


BETWEEN:

V. SANTHAKUMAR S/O. VARADARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.122, 3RD CROSS,
8TH MAIN, KALYAN CO-OP HOUSING
SOCIETY, RPC LAYOUT, HAMPINAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 104.
                                                  ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ROOPESHA B, ADVOCATE)


AND:
1.     THE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
       CORPORATION OFFICES,
       N.R. SQUARE, J.C. ROAD,
       BANGALORE,
       REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
       BANGALORE CITY - 560 002.

2.     THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING,
                                 2

     BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
     JAYANAGARA 2ND BLOCK,
     BANGALORE - 560 011.

3.   THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
     BBMP WARD OFFICE,
     WARD NO-133,
     HAMPI NAGARA,
     BANGALORE - 560 101.

4.   DHANANJAYA KUMAR. T.R.
     S/O. SRI. H. RAMAMURTHY,
     AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

5.   NANDINI. C. H.
     W/O. DHANAJAYA KUMAR. T. R.,
     AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

6.   BHADRISH KUMAR. T. R.
     S/O. SRI. H. RAMAMURTHY,
     AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

7.   SANJANA. C. Y.
     W/O. SRI. BHADRISH KUMAR. T. R.,
     AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

8.   UMESH. P.
     S/O. LATE G. PUTTASWAMY,
     AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

9.   USHARANI. T. R.
     W/O. SRI. UMESH. P,
     AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

     RESPONDENTS 4 TO 9
     ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO-126,
     3RD CROSS, 7TH A MAIN, RPC LAYOUT,
     VIJAYANAGAR,
     BANGALORE - 560 014.
                                              ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.V. MURALIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)
                                   3

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DTD.12.5.2020,
20.3.2020, 08.04.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-C, D, AND E AND FURTHER
DIRECT    THE   RESPONDENTS     TO   DEMOLISH   THE   ILLEGAL
CONSTRUCTION PUT UP THE R-4 TO 9 IN SITE NO.123 FORMED BY
KALYAN CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD 3RD CROSS (OLD 2ND A
CROSS, 7TH C MAIN, BBMP WARD NO.34 PID NO.34-139-123 RPC
LAYOUT VIJAYANAGAR BANGALORE.

     THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR CONCILIATION BEFORE
MEGA LOK ADALAT, THE FOLLOWING CONCILIATION ORDER IS
PASSED.

                      CONCILIATION ORDER


     The petitioner filed the present writ petition for a Writ of

Mandamus against respondent Nos.1 to 3 to consider representation of

the petitioners dated 12.05.2020, 20.03.2021 and 08.04.2021 vide

Annexures - C, D and E and further demolish the illegal construction

made by respondent Nos.4 to 9 in site No.123 formed by Kalyan Co-

operative Housing Society Ltd, 3rd cross (old 2nd A Cross, 7th C main,

BBMP Ward No.34, PID No.34-139-123, RPC Layout, Vijayanagara,

Bangalore.


     2.      Sri. B.V. Muralidhar, learned counsel for the BBMP on

instruction submits that already the representation of the petitioner

had been considered and passed the orders under the provisions of

Section 321 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act.      The said
                                    4

order is passed by Municipality.       The respondent Nos.4 to 9 have

already preferred appeal No.319/2021 before the KAT and same is

pending for adjudication between the parties.


     The said submission is placed on record.


     In view of the above, the writ petition has become infructous.

Hence, the following:

                               ORDER

Since the representation of the petitioner had been considered and already passed orders, the subject matter of the appeal pending between the parties before KAT. Therefore, the prayer sought in writ petition would not serve purpose. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of as having become infructous.

Sd/ JUDGE Sd/-

MEMBER