Karnataka High Court
Smt. Vishalakshi.V vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike on 4 August, 2023
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:27511
WP No. 17019 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 17019 OF 2023 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. VISHALAKSHI.V
W/O LATE N SANTOSH KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT NO.07, 4TH MAIN,
DESHABANDHU NAGAR,
KRISHNA TEMPLE ROAD,
DODDA BOMMASANDRA,
BANGALORE NORTH(T),
VIDYARANYAPURA,
BENGALURU-560097.
2. SMT PRIYANKA CHETHAK
W/O CHETHAK,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT NO.285, 2ND CROSS,
C T BED ROAD,
THYAGARAJANAGAR,
Digitally signed BANASHANKARI II STAGE,
by BENGALURU SOUTH-560070.
NARAYANAPPA
LAKSHMAMMA
Location: HIGH ...PETITIONERS
COURT OF (BY SRI. V B SHIVA KUMAR.,ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
CORPORATION OFFICES, NR SQUARE,
J C ROAD, BENGALURU-560002,
REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
2. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
CORPORATION OFFICES,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:27511
WP No. 17019 of 2023
NR SQUARE, J C ROAD,
BENGALURU-560002.
3. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING
YELAHANKA ZONE,
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
AMRUTHAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
BYATARAYANAPURA,
BENGALURU-560092.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE )
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR
ORDER, QUASHING THE PARTIAL BUILDING DEMOLITION ORDER
BEARING NO.ADTP/YLK/DO/23/2023-24 DTD 27.7.2023 ISSUED BY
THE THIRD RESPONDENT - ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF TOWN
PLANNING, YELAHANKA ZONE, BBMP, BENGALURU UNDER SEC 356
OF BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE ACT, WHICH IS
PRODUCED AT ANNX-A AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. Sri.Pawan Kumar, counsel accepts notice for respondents No.1 to 3.
2. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a. Issue a writ in nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order, quashing the partial building demolition Order bearing No.ADTP/YLK/DO/23/2023-24 dated 27.07.2023 issued by the third respondent-Assistant Director of Town Planning, Yelahanka Zone, BBMP, Bengaluru under Section 356 of Bruhat Bengaluru -3- NC: 2023:KHC:27511 WP No. 17019 of 2023 Mahanagara Palike Act, which is produced at Annexure-A;
b. Consequently, direct the second respondent Chief Commissioner, BBMP to consider the Appeal No.91/2023 filed by the petitioners on the basis of the Law prevailing under the Karnataka City Municipality (Model) Building Bye Laws, 1979 pertaining to the Ground Floor as per sanctioned plan and pass suitable order expeditiously.
c. Allow the writ petition with cost as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.
3. The contention of Sri.V.B.Shiva Kumar, learned counsel for petitioners is that though an appeal had been filed by the petitioners under Section 253 of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 in Appeal No.91/2023, without considering the said appeal, the impugned Partial Building Demolition Order dated 27.07.2023 had been issued.
4. There is no dispute that the appeal, which had been filed on 24.07.2023, is numbered as Appeal No.91/2023 and as such, I am of the considered opinion that without considering the said appeal, a demolition order could not have been issued. Since -4- NC: 2023:KHC:27511 WP No. 17019 of 2023 the appeal is pending, it is for respondent No.1 to consider the same and pass necessary orders thereon and in the event of petitioners failing in that appeal, necessary orders of demolition could be passed. As such, I pass the following:
ORDER i. The Writ Petition is allowed, A certiorari is issued, The Partial Building Demolition Order dated 27.07.2023 passed by respondent No.3 at Annexure-A is hereby quashed.
ii. Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the Appeal No.91/2023 filed by the petitioners strictly in accordance with law within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Needless to say, respondent No.2 shall provide adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioners before passing of orders.
Sd/-
JUDGE PRS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1