Dr.K.Somashekar vs Byatarayanapura City Municipal ... on 26 March, 2009

[Cites 0, Cited by 2]

Karnataka High Court

Dr.K.Somashekar vs Byatarayanapura City Municipal ... on 26 March, 2009

Bench: V.G.Sabhahit

EN THE HIGH CO'UR'1' G? KARNATAKA, BANGALGRE

mag}; THES THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH  . K

PRESENT

THE 1-10N'BL;3 MR. 13.9. DINA1{ARAi\E«,. ;:1im4§Fj%g*1;s§f:*;::EL%5 A

THE HON'BLE MR.JUsff1~2E V;  

WRIT AP?EAL.~- P§o.6S26'f :i:30<;;jLB -5 R193; 
BEFWEEN:        "

DEXK Somashekargg-'V    "  
S/<3.1a}:e Sri K 3    '
Aged about 69 3%;e:31fs," '   «_ " 
F'I°e$eI1t1yresiding Viki}; v'N£}..8'1., '
4% Cross, 1$€I9ia~i:1.,   ~  _ _
U A S L3'§r'0U$, Sanjfayanagar', M.

Bangalore-V560 O94.  _ " " .. Appellant

(By S13' S:':ir1iv..ésa,V_'A€lv. for. Aaren Associates)

1"'. ._  '.__ByataIfay.%;ir£apura City
'  Muzxiéiggai Council,
"'§3ya1£a1"a'yanap1n'a,
 Bz:mga1ore--56O O92,
* : Represented by its Commissioner.

.  I «V  The Commissianer,

Byatarayzmapura City

Municipal Council,

Byatarayamapura,

Bangaloreﬁéf} O92. .. Respendents



IN.)

This WA. is ﬁled under Section 4 of  
High Court; Act, 1961, praying to set-aside t§_1c"<)rd::i* dated a V' 

28.1.2009 passed by the 1eaI11ec7.~A»Sing1e"J;i1dg¢ 

(Z30ur1:inW.P.No.1530/2006.   ;.

This WA coming up for .Preﬁi1zii1ary   %V

Court this day, SABHAHTI' J_, Qeiiﬁemﬁ ti1€.fQ110i¥Eifig: "
  % 
This; appeal is '   petitioner in
W.P.N0. 1530/i§.{}i}f§':.   u Vbyy the order dated

28.1.2039   Single Judge: rejecting

the   -appeilant herein. The said

Writ petitiénéwas  of the notice issueé by

 the »2.§aéri" ;fesp{>1*;d._£§I'1'f  Byatarayanapura City Municipal

V.   _V(iL§;<f:r:cjAir3after referred to as "Municipal Council') as

 ﬁéiiiiout ji1I'iSdi(3I1i{)I1, arbiﬁazy, whimsica},

V -Vma}2;§§:1c"---§.i':cI.V'vio}ative of the pzénciples cf natural justice

'A 'V V frgr éiirectien to tha 15* and 2% £_'_'€SpOI}d€I1t Enot 11) take

 gteps in pursuance of the notice imgugled in

%%@21e writ petiﬁan dated 25.1.2005.

2. It is averreci in the writ petition that the petitionsr is

the owner of -Site No.1??? measuring 40 It. east to West and

\?'



60 fl; north to south in EMT Layout, Vidyaran§%'a§:;ra

under a registered sale deed dated 11. 12. 19_j91.5ie _

petitioner got a building plan apprgfved b§;"t}1e: " = 

Qeveiopment Authority  whc§>see.._' -jii'£*iS<V£;ir;tie:f1é

Vidyaranyapma was i11cIude'ﬁ_.',,.,*\ Ieteex'   *

plan was issued on    fécrtitioxzer
put up eonstjmctioza of  completed
the same in the   completion of
censtruetiozg-'t:i3.e  ieesesseci for tax by
the  ﬁem the year 199'}?
98 and   eaymg the tax regularly. It

is further gisrrgﬁed that  petitioner was issued 3. notice

 ﬁatefft' 1_.'20i}"5' «h3j__ethe Municipal Cjouneil stating that

 Sunder Raj had submitted a cempiaint

 theLt.'j_ {he petitioner has put up CO¥1Sf.I'1IC'[i{}1'l'iI1

  7:;io1a£;;z'0nV"'o§' the sanction plan and wherefore the aforesaid

  jbetitien was preferred.

  The lwmed Single Judge by his order dated

 » '4 1.2909 after hearing the ieazned eezmsel appearing for

'xé



the parties held that the Municipal Council has 

included in the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagare.  

short BBMP') in the month of March,   ~ 

respondents - Municipal Council having swim:

the BBB/'IF, the Municipal ishnot in despite that the petitioner has...not_ in:1Lp1e.a'ded_the BBMP. Accordingly, the writ , rejected. Being aggieved by the.o§'der cfié-ited'::23.:1A.:'2Q{}?9,;the writ petitioner has preferrer.i"'this 1:5 '

4. ii::s:1ffei« for the appellant and for the respondents.

V' easel appearing for the petitioner the Writ petitiotn was ﬁxed in the year 2006 by the notice issued by the Qﬂd respondent Counci} dated 25.31.2006. The said Municipal has since been merged with the BBMP in the month of March,2{)O7 and Wherefore the merger was made ' after ﬁiing of the writ petition, the Muriicipal Council was in existence when the impugled notice was issued and the \§}.

Wﬁt petition couid not be ciismissed. He submitxed that the matter may be remitted by permitting the to impleaé the BBMP.

6. We have given careful g'eenside:7at.ie:ii:"

ccmtentiens urged by the 1eamed:"eeu1ise1 the parties and scrutinized the"--n§7a£exia1 :'eeerﬂ<*L '7. The scrutiny of Sh{}W that the Writ petition Waefiled i11"'ti:e::}gIea4t.':i3§{3€i£§ aggieved by the I1etice ._2mi: ieepeﬁﬁent --- Municipai Councilwyiziateﬁ fact that the Murlieipai Councii hae been elefgeﬁgeiﬁl the BBMP, the writ p€1'iti0£1 Jgae iznpleading the BBMP as one of the V.'-reeé15e:1de1;te.;'«vffizerefore, we held that the order passed by the Judge rejecting the writ peﬁtiorz on the gg-oune fhe BBMP is not made a party, is iiable to be eetfieifie by remitting the matter with a direction to ee'V*izn§ 1ead the BBM? as sought for by the petitioner and jéhereafter dispose off the writ petition in accordance with law. Aeeerdingly, we pass the following:

\R'

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court