Sri S H Malagi vs Bengaluru Bruhat Mahanagar Palike on 2 April, 2018

[Cites 3, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Sri S H Malagi vs Bengaluru Bruhat Mahanagar Palike on 2 April, 2018

Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 KAR 2608

Bench: S.Sujatha

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2018

                         BEFORE:

          THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

        WRIT PETITION No.11356/2018 (LB - BMP)

BETWEEN:

SRI S.H.MALAGI
S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,
R/AT NO.525, 3RD 'A' MAIN ROAD,
OMBR LAYOUT, BANASWADI,
BENGALURU-560043.                              ... PETITIONER

               [BY SRI V.B.SHIVAKUMAR, ADV.]

AND:

1.     BENGALURU BRUHAT MAHANAGAR PALIKE
       REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
       N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560002.

2.     THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
       MARUTI SEVANAGARA,
       SUB DIVISION-BENGALURU
       BRUHAT MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
       BENGALURU-560033.

3.     SMT.ANITA SHETTY
       W/O SRI KUSHA SHETTY,
       AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
       R/AT NO.530, 3RD MAIN,
       OMBR LAYOUT,
       BENGALURU-560043.                  ...RESPONDENTS


     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
                            -2-


ORDER DATED 30.11.2017 IN APPEAL NO.1179/2015 PASSED
BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE AUTHORITY PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

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

                        ORDER

Petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.11.2017 in Appeal No.1179/2015 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal ['Tribunal', for short] produced at Annexure-A to the writ petition.

2. Petitioner is claiming to be adjacent owner of the property in question, whereby the Respondent No.3 is putting up construction. It is alleged that the Respondent No.3 is not following the building bye-laws and in total violation of the sanction plan, is putting up construction on the residential land, put to use for commercial purpose.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Tribunal erred in remanding the matter on flimsy grounds. The spot inspection was -3- conducted in the presence of the petitioner as well as the Respondent No.3. Noticing the deviation and violation of the sanction plan and the bye-laws, final notice under Section 321[3] of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 was issued by the Respondents 1 and 2. Despite deviation being highlighted, the Tribunal has remanded the matter without any valid reasons.

4. It is prima facie apparent that no temporary order was served on the Respondent No.3 and there is categorical finding by the Tribunal to this effect. The Tribunal being the last fact finding Authority, this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence let in by the parties under the extraordinary writ jurisdiction. It is recorded by the Tribunal that no seven days' time was granted subsequent to issuance of the temporary order on 3.7.2015 which is nothing but denial of natural justice. -4-

5. Hence, in the circumstances, the Tribunal remanding the matter to the Respondent No.2 cannot be found fault with.

Writ petition being bereft of merits, stands dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE AN/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court