Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Karnataka High Court

Sri. S. Sundaram vs The Commissioner on 19 September, 2016

Author: Vineet Kothari

Bench: Vineet Kothari

                           1/3




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016

                        BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

        WRIT PETITION No.43093/2016 (LB-BMP)

BETWEEN:

SRI. S. SUNDARAM
S/O M. SOUNDARA RAJAN
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT. No.48-A, BANNERGHATTA
ROAD LAYOUT, JAYANAGAR T BLOCK
THILAK NAGAR, BANGALORE - 41.
                                       ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAMESH ANANTHAN, ADV.)

AND:

1.      THE COMMISSIONER
        BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
        N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE - 02.

2.      THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
        BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
        JAYANAGAR SUB-DIVISION, 1ST FLOOR
        JAYANAGAR SHOPPING COMPLEX
        4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 11.

3.      SRI. MOHAMMED MANSOOR KHAN
        S/O LATE ABID ALI KHAN
        AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
        R/AT. No.24, 1ST CROSS
        SOMESHWARANAGAR, JAYANAGAR
        1ST BLOCK, BANGALORE - 41.
                                     ...RESPONDENTS

      THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 & 2 TO
INITIATE APPROPRIATE ACTION IN PURSUANCE OF THE
COMPLAINT/OBJECTION DTD.20.10.2015 AND 9.11.2015, VIDE
ANNEX-B & C FOR THE DEVIATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION AS
PER THE SANCTIONED PLAN VIDE ANNEX-A IN RESPECT OF
THE PETITION SCHEDULE PROPERTY & ETC.
                               Date of Order 19.9.2016 W.P.No.43093/2016
                             Sri. S. Sundaram Vs The Commissioner & Ors.

                             2/3


      THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-


                         ORDER

Mr.Ramesh Ananthan, Adv. for Petitioner

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking restraint against respondent No.3- Mohammed Mansoor Khan from raising the impugned construction, in which the proceedings against him were taken by the respondent-BBMP and certain orders were passed under Section 321 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act.

2. Counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that respondent No.3 filed a civil suit namely O.S.No.567/2016 in the court of learned City Civil Judge at Bangalore and obtained an ex-parte interim order concealing the material facts from that Court.

3. A copy of such temporary injunction order is produced on record as Annexure-K and copy of the plaint of O.S.No.567/2016 is produced as Annexure-J. Date of Order 19.9.2016 W.P.No.43093/2016 Sri. S. Sundaram Vs The Commissioner & Ors. 3/3

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that once litigation about the said property for the authority of respondent No.3 to raise the said construction is already pending in a competent civil court, the present petitioner can be given liberty to seek impleadment and place requisite documents for consideration of the same trial court after such impleadment.

5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of with a liberty and direction to the petitioner to seek impleadment in O.S.No.576/2016 (Mohammed Mansoor Khan vs. The Commissioner, BBMP) and the trial court is directed to allow such impleadment and give an opportunity to lead evidence to the present petitioner also.

6. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE Srl.