Karnataka High Court
Smt. Chandrika D. Reddy vs The Chief Commissioner on 19 March, 2024
Author: B M Shyam Prasad
Bench: B M Shyam Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:11326
WP No. 2941 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO.2941 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. CHANDRIKA D. REDDY
W/O. LATE SRI. H. K. DWARAKANATH REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 708-709,
B BLOCK, KEERTHI SIGNATURE APARTMENTS,
ITPL MAIN ROAD, HOODI,
WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU-560 048.
2. SMT. HARSHITHA DWARAK
W/O. K. V. KARTHIK REDDY,
D/O. LATE SRI. H. K. DWARAKANATH REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 703,
B BLOCK, KEERTHI SIGNATURE APARTMENTS,
ITPL MAIN ROAD, HOODI,
Digitally WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU-560 048.
signed by
ANAND N ...PETITIONERS
Location:
HIGH (BY SRI. M.B. ANIRUDH A/W
COURT OF
KARNATAKA SMT. NIDHI M PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER
BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R. SQUARE,
BENGALURU-560 002.
2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:11326
WP No. 2941 of 2024
HOODI SUB DIVISION,
BENGALURU-560 048.
3. SMT. VINAYA. B. N.
W/O. SANTHOSH BALASUBRAMANYA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 422,
5TH CROSS, 3RD B MAIN,
3RD BLOCK, KALYAN NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 043.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SATYANAND B S ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. VIVEK. N ADVOCATE FOR C/R3)
THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12/01/2024
(ANNEXURE-A) AS ISSUED BY THE R1 IN BBMP CASE
NO. 182/2023 AND DIRECT THE PETITIONERS TO BE
IMPLEADED AS PARTIES TO THE IMPUGNED
PROCEEDINGS (ANNEXURE-A) PENDING BEFORE THE
R1 IN BBMP CASE NO: 182/2023.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners are the owners of the land in Sy.No.174/1A/5 of Hoodi Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, within the BBMP Mahadevapura Zone and the third respondent is the owner of land in Sy.No.174/6 of the same village. The petitioners have commenced suit in O.S.No.5881/2023 against the third respondent -3- NC: 2024:KHC:11326 WP No. 2941 of 2024 for declaration of title and for mandatory injunction. The petitioners are aggrieved by the first respondent's order dated 12.01.2024 [Annexure-A] in Appeal No.182/2023, which is filed under Section 253 of the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 [BBMP Act]. The first respondent has rejected the petitioner's application for impleadment observing that the proceedings are about deviations in the construction and opining that the petitioner must approach the competent civil Court.
2. Sri. M. B. Anirudh, a learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon a series of decisions, including the orders of the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 30.11.2021 in W.P.No.18150/2018, submits that this Court's consistent view is that a complainant would be a necessary party to the proceedings emanating from the orders for demolishing on the grounds of violation of building plan and sanction.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:11326 WP No. 2941 of 2024
3. Sri. Vivek N, a learned counsel for the caveator/third respondent submits that, the reason for the consistent view of this Court as expressed in W.P.No.18150/2018 is because of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in SHANTESH GUREDDI & ANOTHER vs. COMMISSIONER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BANGALORE1 and the Division Bench has opined that the power to add a party to the proceedings is discretionary in nature and therefore, this Court may not interfere with the first respondent's order.
4. These rival submissions are considered in the light of the following circumstances.
4.1 The third respondent contends in the appeal proceedings before the first respondent that she has the advantage of a plan sanctioned by the erstwhile CMC Mahadevapura in the year 2007; 1 ILR 2017 KAR 1583 -5- NC: 2024:KHC:11326 WP No. 2941 of 2024 that though the construction is commenced in the year 2008, it was not completed due to financial constraints; that after the due transfer in their favour they have commenced construction and the plan approved by CMC would inure to their advantage.
4.2 The petitioners on the other hand contend that the third respondent cannot rely upon this plan, and in fact they contend that it is a fraudulent document. The Assistant Executive Engineer, BBMP, Hoodi Division, has issued a notice under Section 248(1) of the BBMP Act, 2023, giving the details of the measurements of what is described as unlawful construction, without referring to the plan that is relied upon by the third respondent and even the confirmation order dated 27.10.2023 under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act, does not refer to the same.
5. The petitioners' grievance as against the construction must necessarily be examined in the -6- NC: 2024:KHC:11326 WP No. 2941 of 2024 light of the afore and independent of any civil dispute because no person can be permitted to put up construction either without plan that is duly sanctioned or in breach of such plan. The first respondent in overlooking these materials has failed to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction leading to a denial of opportunity to the petitioner and enabling complete adjudication, and therefore, this Court must not only intervene and set aside the impugned order but also direct the petitioners impleadment in the appeal proceedings. It is submitted that the first respondent has reserved the appeal for order, and the order is yet to be pronounced. In the light of afore, the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed in part.
(ii) The first respondent's impugned order dated 12.01.2024 [Annexure-A] in Appeal No.182/2023 is quashed -7- NC: 2024:KHC:11326 WP No. 2941 of 2024 allowing the petitioners' application in such proceedings to be impleaded as respondents.
(iii) The third respondent is called upon to implead the petitioners within the time that the first respondent will allow in this regard consequent to this order, and if the third respondent does not carry out the amendment, as aforesaid, the petitioners shall be permitted to carry out the amendment and file the amended petition.
(iv) In the light the undisputed fact that that first respondent has reserved the orders, the petitioners are reserved with liberty to file a memo about this order forthwith and seek deferment of the orders until a -8- NC: 2024:KHC:11326 WP No. 2941 of 2024 certified copy of this order is produced.
Sd/-
JUDGE DR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16