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

Rustumji Residency Owners Association vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike ... on 27 June, 2012

Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri

Bench: Ashok B. Hinchigeri

                            1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

     DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2012

                         BEFORE

 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI

     WRIT PETITION NO.19501 OF 2012 (LB-BMP)

BETWEEN:

Rustumji Residency Owners Association,
An Association of the owners of Apartments
Of Rustumji Residency,
No.87, Richmond Road,
Bangalore - 560 025.
Represented by its President.                ... Petitioner

               (By Ms.R Sukrutha, Advocate for
                  M/s Lexplexus Associates)

AND:

1.     Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP),
       Hudson Circle, Bangalore,
       Represented by its Commissioner.

2.     Assistant Director, Town Planning,
       Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP),
       East zone, Ward No.111, Shanthi Nagar,
       Mayo Hall, M G Road,
       Bangalore.

3.     Assistant Executive Engineer,
       Shanthi Nagar Sub-Division,
       7th Floor, P U Building,
       Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike,
       Bangalore.
                             2



4.   M/s Skyline Developers,
     No.11, Hayes Road, Richmond Town,
     Bangalore - 560 025.
     Represented by its Partner
     Mr.Avinash Prabhu.

5.   Mr.Kashif Ali Khan,
     Major,
     Site No.7, Kingston Road,
     Richmond Town, Bangalore - 25.        ... Respondents

       (By Sri I G Gachchinamath, Advocate for R1-3:
            Ms.Rashmi Venkatesan, Advocate for
           M/s Indus Law, Advocates for R4 & R5)

      This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227
of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order
of stay dated 27.1.12 passed by the Karnataka Appellate
Tribunal in appeal No.23/12 vide Annex-M and etc.

      This writ petition, coming on for preliminary
hearing in 'B' Group this day, the Court made the
following:

                        ORDER

The petitioner's grievance is that its applications for impleading itself in Appeal No.23/2012 and for vacating the interim order of stay have remained unconsidered.

2. Ms.R.Sukruta, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.4 has been putting up the construction on the property belonging 3 to the respondent No.5 in violation of the sanctioned plan. The petitioner, which is an association of the owners of the apartments situated in the vicinity of the construction site, submitted the representation to the Bruhat Bangalore Mahangara Palike ('B.B.M.P.' for short). The B.B.M.P. passed the order in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 321(3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, directing the respondent No.4 to bring the standing structure in conformity with the sanctioned plan. This order made it clear that the B.B.M.P. would take action in accordance with law, if the fourth respondent fails to comply with the said direction.

3. This order came to be challenged by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 by filing Appeal No.23/2012 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal ('KAT' for short). The K.A.T., by its order, dated 27.01.2012 granted stay to the confirmation order, dated 26.02.2011. The petitioner sought its impleadment in 4 the said appeal and also vacating of the interim order of stay. The said two applications have remained unconsidered. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the consideration of the said I.A.s is being deferred on one or the other ground.

4. Ms.Rashmi Venkatesan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 submits that the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have already filed objections to the said two I.A.s. filed by the petitioner's side on 10.04.2012.

5. On hearing the learned advocates, I dispose of this petition with a direction to the K.A.T. to dispose of the petitioner's I.A. for impleadment within one month from today. Further, the KAT is directed to dispose off the other pending I.A.s and the main matter as expeditiously as possible. I am informed at the Bar that the next date of hearing before the K.A.T. is 18.07.2012. The parties and/or their respective advocates shall go on with the matter on the next date of hearing. They 5 shall co-operate with the K.A.T. in the speedy disposal of the petitioner's I.A. for impleadment.

6. This petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE Cm/-