Mrs.Neela Murthy vs State Of Karnataka on 1 August, 2013

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Mrs.Neela Murthy vs State Of Karnataka on 1 August, 2013

Bench: L. Narayana Swamy

                              1




       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

          DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2013

                           BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY

       WRIT PETITION NO. 6906 OF 2013 ( LB-BMP)

BETWEEN:

Mrs. Neela Murthy
W/o Late Sri. BSK Murthy
Aged about 83 years
Residing at No.7, 1st Cross
Palace Cross Road, Chakravarthy Layout,
Bangalore 560 020.
                                                   ...PETITIONER

(BY Shri V.Srinivasa Raghavan for M/s Indus-Law)

AND:

  1. State of Karnataka
     Represented by its Secretary
     Urban Development Department
     Vikasa Soudha,
     Bangalore 560 001.

  2. The Commissioner
     Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike
     Corporation Circle, Hudson Circle
     Bangalore 560 002.

  3. The Joint Director
     Town Planning Cell,
     Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike
     Corporation Circle, Hudson Circle
                              2




     Bangalore 560 002.

  4. Mr. R.Chandrappa
     S/o Late Ramappa
     Aged major, Partner at
     M/s. CB Associates,
     At: No.27, Kempe Gowda Road
     Gandhinagar
     Bangalore 560 009.

  5. Mr. K.Bagaegowda,
     S/o Late Kempaiah
     Aged major
     Partner at M/s. CB Associates
     AT: No. 27, Kempe Gowda Road
     Gadhinagar
     Bangalore 560 009.
                                           ...RESPONDENTS

(BY Smt. Manjula R. Kannadolli HGCP for R1;
    Shri Raghavendra for M/s.Rangaswamy Assts.
    For R2 & R3; R4 & R5 served)


     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
R2 AND R3 TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONERS REPRESENTION/
LETTER DT.27.6.12 VIDE ANNEXURE-N REQUESTING THE R2
AND 3 TO CANCEL THE SANCTION PLAN QUASH/CANCEL THE
SANCTION PLAN VIDE ANNEXURE-M WHICH HAS BEEN
ILLEGALLY PROCURED BY THE R4 AND 5 BY SUPPRESSING
FACTS AND DOCUMENTS; AND ETC.,

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:

                          ORDER

3 The learned Government Advocate is directed to take notice for Respondent No.1. The Respondents No.4 & 5 though served remained unrepresented.

2. The petitioner challenges the sanctioned plan in favour of Respondent No.4. The prayer is also made to consider the representation - Annexure-N dated 27.6.2012.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that 4th respondent obtained the sanctioned plan which includes the adjoining property of the petitioner. When representation is made as per Annexure-N, the said representation has not been considered so far.

4. The learned counsel for the Corporation submits that the sanctioned plan which was granted on 19.10.2007, has not been challenged so far by the petitioner. Hence the petitioner cannot challenge the same after a considerable length of time. 4

5. In the facts and circumstances, the respondent No.2 is duty bound to consider and pass appropriate order on Annexure-N. Whenever a case of this nature comes, alleging that sanctioned plan granted includes the property of the adjoining owners, that has to be considered at a top priority and till consideration of representation, normally the sanctioned plan shall not be issued. In that view of the matter, I pass the following order.

The petition is allowed. The respondent no.2 is directed to consider and pass appropriate order within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Till then the Corporation shall not proceed to sanction any plan in favour of the 4th respondent.

Sd/-

JUDGE AKD

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court