Karnataka High Court
S.N. Builders And Developers vs State By Bangalore Metropolitan Task ... on 23 August, 2016
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION Nos.44653-44654 OF 2016 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. S.N.Builders and Developers,
A partnership firm registered
Under the Indian Partnership Act,
1932, presently having its
Office at No.4, II Floor,
Elephant Rock Road,
3rd Floor, Jayanagar,
Bangalore - 560 011.
(represented by its
Managing Partner
Sri. Shah Sanjay)
2. Sri. Shah Sanjay,
Managing Partner of
S.N.Builders and Developers,
Residing at Flat No.17-01,
No.3761, Raj Lake View Apartments,
N.S.Palya Main Road,
29th Main Road,
Bangalore - 560076.
...PETITIONERS
2
(By Shri Goutham Chand S.F., Advocate)
AND:
1. State by Bangalore Metropolitan
Task Force (BMTF) Police,
N.R.Square,
Bangalore City,
Bangalore - 560 002.
Represented by Police Sub-Inspector.
2. The Commissioner,
Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara
Palike, N.R.Square,
Bangalore - 560 002.
...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri Sreenidhi V., Government Pleader)
*****
These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India read with Section 482 code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash the FIR in Crime
No.107/2016 on the file of first respondent and set aside all
further proceedings thereto vide Annexure- A and B.
These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing
this day, the court made the following:
3
ORDER
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners. The first petitioner is a company which claims to be a developer and the second petitioner is the managing partner of the first petitioner
- company.
2. It transpires that the Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force (BMTF), at the instance of the Commissioner, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), who are the first and second respondents herein, have undertaken a massive drive to identify illegal constructions on the storm water drains through out the city and within the buffer zone and are inquiring into the illegalities committed by its officers of having sanctioned building plans on the storm water drains as well as in the buffer zone.
3. It is the allegation of the respondents that the building developed by the petitioner in land bearing Municipal No.50/1, 50/2, 52/1, 58, 59/1, 61/1A of Bilekahalli village, is 4 alleged to be falling within the buffer zone prescribed under the zonal regulations of the Bangalore Development Authority. The petitioner has been called upon for an inquiry and is being harassed by the respondents. It is also the fear of the respondents that the building itself may come under demolition. Hence, the petitioners are before this court.
4. It is made clear by the learned Government Advocate that insofar as the constructions that are put up on the storm water drains are concerned, there is no quarter and the buildings would be demolished. Insofar as the buildings that are put up on the buffer zone are concerned, since the matter is seized by the Supreme Court, the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) has stayed its hand till such time there are further orders. Hence, there is no threat of demolition for the present.
5
5. Insofar as the harassment said to have been caused to the petitioners, it is made clear that if the petitioners have constructed a building according to the sanctioned plan, without the sanction plan being cancelled or withdrawn, the question of harassing the petitioner or calling him for an inquiry will not arise.
Therefore, recording the submission that the respondents shall not call upon the petitioner for any inquiry in respect of the sanctioned building plan, till such time it is warranted that the said building plan be cancelled for some reason, the petitions stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE nv