Karnataka High Court
Sri C M Prakash vs The Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara on 21 February, 2014
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
Bench: A.N. Venugopala Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO.3020/2014 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
SRI C M PRAKASH,
S/O SRI C.M. MUNISWAMAIAH SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.10, 1ST CROSS,
KATHRIGUPPE EAST,
REVENUE (SOUTH)
BANGALORE 560085.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.V.B.SHIVA KUMAR, ADV.)
AND
1. THE BRUHAT BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
CORPORATION OFFICES,
N.R SQUARE,
J.C. ROAD,
BANGALORE 560002.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
COMMISSIONER.
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER
BRUHAT BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
GIRINAGAR SUB-DIVISION,
CHANNAMMANAKERE ACHUKATTU
2
MUNICIPAL BUILDING,
BANGALORE 560028.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DTD.31.12.2013 PASSED BY THE
KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE IN
APPEAL NO.1155/2013 AS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND NOT
SUSTAINABLE IN LAW, VIDE ANNEX-A.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition is directed against an order dated 31.12.2013 in Appeal No.1155/2013 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal.
2. Heard Sri V.B.Shiva Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the writ petition record.
3. Petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of property bearing No.94/3, House List No.316, Kathriguppe, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. He obtained sanction plan and licence from the B.B.M.P, for construction of building on the said site. Construction having commenced, petitioner's neighbour 3 one Sri T.N.Shrikantaiah having complained to the B.B.M.P alleging that the construction made by the petitioner is not in accordance with the sanctioned plan and the building licence, B.B.M.P initiated proceedings under Section 321 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. A provisional order passed was subsequently confirmed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed Appeal No.1155/2013. The Tribunal has passed an interim order directing to maintain the status-quo.
4. The petitioner contends that he has rectified the construction, to be in conformity with the plan approved and the building licence issued and despite the request made the authorities of B.B.M.P. having been not inspected the property and on account of the order of status-quo passed by the Tribunal, he being unable to proceed with the further construction in terms of the sanctioned plan and the licence, Sri V.B.Shiva Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner 4 submitted that interference with the impugned order is called for.
6. The impugned order is an interim order passed by the Tribunal, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the photos which depicted the ongoing construction. It is on account of the said factor the Tribunal has directed maintenance of status-quo and the respondent was directed not to demolish the construction which has been put up.
7. In view of the order passed under Section 321(3) of the Act, the petitioner was directed not to proceed with the further construction in violation of the bylaws and the approved plan.
8. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, since the petitioner is asserting that he has removed objectionable construction and that the existing construction is in accordance with the 5 sanctioned plan and building licence issued by the B.B.M.P, he may make an application seeking to modify the order passed on 31.12.2013. If necessary, the Tribunal may direct the Assistant Executive Engineer of Girinagar Sub-Division of B.B.M.P., wherein the property is situated, to inspect the building and submit the report as to whether the objectionable portions of the construction has been removed and whether the existing building is in conformity with the sanctioned plan and building licence.
By taking into consideration inspection report and the record of the case, Tribunal may decide the appeal in accordance with law, expeditiously and before 30.05.2014.
Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE BSR