Karnataka High Court
Smt. Saraswathi Manjunath vs The Commissioner on 1 June, 2023
Bench: Chief Justice, M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
WA No. 406 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT APPEAL NO. 406 OF 2023 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SARASWATHI MANJUNATH
W/O SRI. G.M. MANJUNATH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT NO.50,
BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE,
NEW BDA LAYOUT
AVALAHALLI
BANGALORE - 560 070.
Digitally ...APPELLANT
signed by (BY SRI. NAIK N.R., ADVOCATE)
SUMA B N
Location:
High Court AND:
of
Karnataka 1. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
BANGALORE - 560 002.
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
GALI ANJANEYASWAMY SUB-DIVISION
BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
5TH MAIN ROAD
-2-
WA No. 406 of 2023
HAMPINAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 006.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO i) SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN WP No.24310/2015 DATED:01.02.2023 BY
REJECTING THE WRIT PETITION AND ALLOW THE WRIT
PETITION FILED BY THE APPELLANT. ii) CALL FOR RECORDS
AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF/S DEEMS FIT AS THE
CIRCUMSTANCES EXPLAINED ABOVE INCLUDING COST IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, M.G.S.KAMAL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This writ appeal is against the order dated 01.02.2023 passed in W.P.No.24310/2015(LB-BMP)by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the order passed under Section 321(3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 and the order dated 15.04.2015 passed in Appeal No.514/2012 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. -3- WA No. 406 of 2023
2. It is the case of appellant/writ petitioner that she is the owner in possession of property bearing site No.50 forming part of Sy.No.17/1, 27/1 and 27/2 of Avalahalli, Banashankari III Stage, Bengaluru, measuring 55.75 meters. That she had obtained sanction plan for constructing a residential building on 24.02.2010 as per Annexure-B and that a residential house was built in accordance with the sanction plan. That the order under Section 321(3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act was passed. Upon the complaint filed by a neighbour of the appellant/petitioner alleging unauthorised construction, the appellant had filed an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.514/2012 which was dismissed by order dated:15.04.2015. That the said order was without considering the grounds urged by the appellant/petitioner.
3. On the contrary, it is the case of respondent- BBMP that there is 100% deviation in the construction of building on the front and left side setback areas. That the -4- WA No. 406 of 2023 Appellate Tribunal after having gone through the records had dismissed the appeal of the appellant/petitioner.
4. After having heard the counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, particularly taking note of the deviations as extracted at paragraph 6 of the impugned order, learned Single Judge declined to entertain the writ petition and rejected the same. Being aggrieved by the said order the appellant is before this Court.
5. Heard Sri.N.R.Naik, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to point out any error in the details of violation/deviation in the construction of building as extracted in paragraph 6 of the impugned order. The percentage of violation shown at column No.4 of the table would reveal that there has been 100% deviation on the front side (North) and left side (West) of the building. Though a feeble attempt is made -5- WA No. 406 of 2023 by the learned counsel for appellant to the effect that in respect of sites of smaller dimension there is no requirement of obtaining sanction plan, learned counsel failed to persuade this Court on this count by showing any such provision. Needles to state there cannot be any construction in violation of building byelaws. In the circumstances, we do not see any ground warranting interference with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, writ appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE SBN