Richards Town Residents Association vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike on 4 January, 2023

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Richards Town Residents Association vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike on 4 January, 2023

Bench: S.G. Pandit

                             1


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

                        BEFORE

         THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT

        WRIT PETITION No.24597/2021 (LB-BMP)

BETWEEN:
RICHARDS TOWN RESIDENTS' ASSOCIATION
A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA
SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960
HAVING OFFICE AT FLAT No.203,
PEARSON RESIDENCY, No.33,
VIVIANI ROAD, RICHARDS TOWN,
BANGALORE-560005
REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS PRESIDENT
MR.RAPHAEL JOHNSON AND
VIDE-P-RESIDENT ANNA ALEX JACOB.        ...PETITIONER

            (BY SRI.YANNI UTHAPPA., ADVOCATE)

AND:
1.     BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
       NO.1, N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE-560 02
       REP. HEREIN BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

2.     ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
       BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
       K.G.HALLI SUB DIVISION,
       ROBERTSON ROAD, FRAZER TOWN,
       BENGALURU-560 005.

3.     BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD
       ARABIC COLLEGE MAIN RD, MUSLIM COLONY,
       SAGAYAPURA, RICHARDS TOWN,
       BENGLAURU-560 045
       REP THROUGH ITS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGIENER.

4.     BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY
       ROBERTSON ROAD, FRAZER TOWN
       NEAR SINDHI COLONY SIGNAL
                                   2


      BANGALORE-560 005
      REPTD THROUGH ITS
      ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICITY)

5.    AJAMATHULLA
      NO.6/1, CLARKE ROAD,
      WARD NO.60, SAGAYAPURAM
      RICHARDS TOWN, BANGALORE-560 005.

6.    RUMANA BEGUM
      NO.6/1, CLARKE ROAD,
      WARD NO.60, SAGAYAPURAM
      RICHARDS TOWN, BANGALORE-560 005.
                                       ...RESPONDENTS

       (BY SRI.T.M.VENKATAREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
       SRI.SHANTHI BHUSHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R4;
         SRI.K.B.MOHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
        SRI.VENUGOPAL.G.M., ADVOCATE FOR R5 & R6.)

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT
THE RESPONDENT No.1 TO TAKE NECESSARY STEPS TO
ENSURE THAT THE CONSTRUCTION PUT UP ON THE
SCHEDULE PROPERTY IN STRICTLY IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE
SANCTIONED PLAN DATED 17.10.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-B; AND
ETC.,

    THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

                            ORDER

The petitioner, Richards Town Residents' Association is before this Court under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs:

"(a) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or any such/other writ order or order directing the 1st respondent to take 3 necessary steps to ensure that the construction put up on the schedule property is strictly in compliance with the sanctioned plan bearing number L.P.No.BBMP/AD.COM./EST/0612/20-12 dated 17.10.2020 vide Annexure-B;

(b) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or any such/other writ order or order directing the 1st respondent to take necessary steps to remove/dismantle/demolish any part of the construction on the schedule property that is in violation/not in compliance with the sanctioned plan bearing number L.P.No.BBMP/AD.COM./EST/0612/20-12 dated 17.10.2020 vide Annexure-B."

2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Yanni Uthappa for the petitioner, learned counsel Sri.T.M.Venkatareddy, for respondent No.1, learned counsel Sri.Shanthi Bhushan for respondent Nos.2 and 4, learned counsel Sri.K.B.Mohan Kumar for respondent No.3 and learned counsel Sri.Venugopal.G.M., for 4 respondent Nos.5 and 6. Perused the writ petition papers.

3. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for a writ of mandamus to the respondent No.1 to take necessary steps to ensure the construction is in accordance with the sanctioned plan and also to remove/dismantle/demolish construction which is in violation of the sanctioned plan.

4. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 have taken action in terms of Section 321(3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (for short 1976 Act) by passing provisional and confirmation order directing removal of the portion of the building constructed deviating the plan. Against the confirmation order passed under Section 321(3) of the 1976 Act, respondent Nos.5 and 6 have preferred Appeal No.112/2022 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal at Bengaluru and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal by 5 order dated 09.03.2022 stayed the confirmation order dated 03.03.2021.

5. Since the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have already taken steps to see that the construction is in accordance with the sanctioned plan and as their action is challenged before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, I am of the view that the question of issuing mandamus to respondent Nos.1 and 2 would not arise at this stage. I am sure, depending on the outcome of the said appeal, respondent Nos.1 and 2 would take appropriate action.

With the above, writ petition stands disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE NC.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court