Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. In pursuance of summons, defendant put appearance and submitted written statement contending that suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in law or on facts. The defendant called upon the plaintiff to prove that he is the owner of the schedule property and khatha of the schedule property in his name. It is averred that plaintiff filed the present suit by suppressing the actual facts visible on the schedule property and put up construction of building in violation of the Building Bye-Laws with 100% building deviations. The sanction plan does not disclose the facts pertaining to measurement of the building. However, A.E.E of Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Basavanagudi Sub-Division visited the place of construction at initial stage in the presence of plaintiff and advised to remove the deviated portions in order to avoid legal action. The plaintiff by ignoring the instructions, continued further construction by retaining the deviated portion and thereby violated the sanction plan and licence. Therefore, the defendant issued notice under Section 308 of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act to furnish documents. The defendant denied the averments made out in para 5 of the plaint as false, frivolous and vexatious. It is averred that alleged threat by defendant authority abruptly appearing near the schedule property during 3rd week of September, 2016 and same is created conveniently. It is pleaded that AEE of Basavanagudi Sub-Division has inspected the place of construction in presence of plaintiff and took measurement of construction so as to ascertain the percentage of deviation and initiated proceedings under Section 321 of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act and by passing a Provisional Order on 23/11/2016 under Section 321(1) for removal of deviations and served in person alongwith show cause notice issued under Section 321(2) of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act. The defendant pleaded that plaintiff has put up construction on residential building with 100% setback deviations at Front side, Back side and Right side apart from encroachment of 0.75 Mts X 12.10 Mts towards conservancy. There is a deviation of building coverage at 98.13%. The plaintiff did not take steps to remove such deviation and on the contrary continued further construction inspite of direction to stop further construction till removal of deviations through notice. Therefore, A.E.E, Basavanagudi Sub- Division proceeded to pass the Confirmation Order on 03/12/2016 and sent to plaintiff through registered post, which returned unserved as 'unclaimed'. The defendant averred that plaintiff has not issued statutory notice to defendant prior to institution of the suit. Therefore, the question of sending reply does not arise. No cause of action accrues to the plaintiff to file the suit. The alleged cause of action are created conveniently to suit the claim by suppressing the material facts regarding initiation of action under Section 321 of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act. Therefore, suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by jurisdiction. It is averred that AEE has written letter to BWSSB and BESCOM not to grant permission for electricity and water supply to schedule building as construction undertaken by the plaintiff is full of deviations. The defendant pleaded that it is empowered to stop unauthorized construction and also initiate proceedings for removal and demolition of deviations and unauthorized constructions on the building. The plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands. The relief claimed by the plaintiff is discretionary one. As the plaintiff suppressed the true facts in order to protect illegal and unauthorized construction with deviations, as such he is not entitled to any of the relief. The suit is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected as when Confirmation Order is passed, the Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The remedy lies as per Section 443-A of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act. On these grounds and substance, prayed for dismissing the suit.

19. On going through the available materials on record, this Court finds that plaintiff by obtaining sanction plan from defendant authority started constructing the building. During the course of construction of building, plaintiff deviated from sanction plan and by violating building bye-laws, put up construction. On noticing the deviation and violation of building bye-laws, the defendant authority caused notice under Section 321(1) of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act and passed provisional order directing the plaintiff to remove the deviation and unauthorized construction within the stipulated time. The notice of observation made during local inspection of schedule property and provisional order has been served in accordance with Section 455 of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act. As the plaintiff fails to comply the order passed under Section 321(2) of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, the defendant authority passed confirmation order under Section 321(3) of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act and same has been sent by registered post to the address of the plaintiff and also affixed copy of the order on the gate of building when plaintiff refused to receive it. On considering Ex.D.2 i.e., order passed under Section 321(1) of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, it clearly establishes the fact that plaintiff has put up building on the schedule property contrary to the sanction plan and also deviated from the plan. The defendant authority being competent to restrain the owner or builder of the property from putting up of any unauthorized or illegal construction, therefore the act of defendant in issuing notice passing provisional and confirmation order under Sections 321(1), 321(2), 321(3) of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act cannot be construed as illegal attempt to demolish the constructed building of the plaintiff. Therefore, for these reasons, this Court answers Issue Nos.1 and 2 in the Negative.

20. ISSUES NO.3:- For the reasons, findings given in the above made discussion, this Court comes to conclusion that plaintiff is the owner of the schedule property and obtained sanctioned plan for putting up of the residential building consisting of ground, first and second floor from defendant authority. The plaintiff during the course of constructing the building has deviated from sanction plan and violated building bye-laws. The plaintiff during course of constructing the building has deviated from sanction plan and violated building bye-laws. The defendant authority when visited the spot of schedule property and noticed deviation and unauthorized construction undertaken by the plaintiff on the schedule property, caused notice under Section 321 of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act directing to remove the deviation as specified in the notice and passed provisional order under Section 321(2) of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act. The defendant authority served the copy of the order/notice to the plaintiff as required under Section 455 of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act. Inspite of it, the plaintiff continued the construction work, as such the confirmation order under Section 321(3) of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act has been passed and same has been sent by registered post and also affixed on the copy of the building of schedule property when plaintiff refused to receive it. As per Section 443-A or 444 of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, the aggrieved person by any notice issued, action taken or proposed to be taken under Sections 308, 309 and 321(3) may appeal to Karnataka Appellate Tribunal or District Court or appeal by any notice or any other action taken or proposed to be taken under Sections 138, 247, 248, 249, 252, 322(1), 323(1), 328(1), 329, 330, 337, 345, 347, 354, 355 and 358 of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act to Standing Committee. Any order passed by Karnataka Appellate Tribunal or Standing Committee shall be final.

21. The plaintiff filed the suit seeking Permanent Injunction against defendant alleging attempt to demolish constructed building on the schedule property illegally by defendant authority. On going through the case laws reported in ILR 1991 Kar 1887, judgment passed in R.F.A No.1922/2010, R.F.A No.1944/2011, W.P.No. 2882/2017, W.P.No.4906/2006, this Court finds that absolutely there is no dispute regarding the principles laid down by their Lordships. In ILR 1991 Kar 1887 it is held that though the order passed under Section 444 of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act is final, but jurisdiction of Civil Court for entertaining the suit for injunction is available under Section 482 of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act. In RFA No.1922/2010, an order on IA filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) to (d) of Code of Civil Procedure has been challenged wherein it is held that suit filed not questioning the show cause notice under Sections 321(1), 321(2) and 321(3) of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, but sought for injunction restraining Corporation from dispossessing the plaintiff. In the present case, the plaintiff filed the suit for injunction contending that he has constructed building in accordance with sanction plan without deviation or violating building bye- laws, but the defendant contended that there is a deviation from sanction plan and building has been constructed violating the building bye-laws. In this regard, they have issued and passed notice, provisional and confirmation order under provisions of Sections 321(1), (2), (3) of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act. In the present case, the question arises for consideration is whether order passed under the provisions of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act has been served on plaintiff or not. In view of the earlier discussion, this Court held that notice/order passed under Sections 321(1),(2) (3) of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act has been duly served. Therefore, the principles of the decisions is not applicable to the present case. Another judgment passed in RFA No.1944/2011 has been relied by the plaintiff. In the said decision, plaintiff challenged the order passed on Issue No.3 i.e., maintainability of the suit. It is observed that defendant Corporation filed written statement contending about issuance of notice passing order under Sections 321(1)and 321(3) of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, but trial of the case was not yet commenced and the Corporation has not produced documents such as notice, provisional and confirmation order passed against the plaintiff. Therefore, it is held that without producing any document with regard to issuance of the notice, confirmation order, trial Court cannot proceed to pass the order dismissing the suit as not maintainable and set aside the order of the trial Court. The facts and circumstances of the case decided and facts and circumstances of this case are entirely different. In this case, the defendant produced the documents regarding issuance of the notice, passing of provisional and confirmation oder under Sections 321(1),(2),(3) of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act. Further, the trial has been completed. Therefore, the case law will not help the plaintiff in any way. The plaintiff also relied on order passed in W.P.No.2882/2017. On going through the order, it reveals that Corporation challenged the order passed on I.A filed under Order VII Rules 11(a) and (d) of Code of Civil Procedure. The Hon'ble High Court considered the maintainability of the suit in view of Sections 443-A and 482(1) of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act. The facts and circumstances of the case decided are different from the case in hand. Therefore, the principles of the case law will not effect the present case. The case law reported in S.C.C 1993(3) 161, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered jurisdiction of Civil Court with reference to Delhi Municipal Corporation Act and it is held that Act does not create any right or liability, but purports to regulate common law the right of citizens to erect or construct buildings of their choice. Under certain special circumstances in respect of jurisdictional errors such as basic procedural requirements not being followed, Civil Court can entertain the suit despite the statutory bar. In this case also, the plaintiff alleged that without service of notice/order passed under Sections 321(1)(2)(3) of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, the defendant illegally made attempt to demolish the building. Further, the plaintiff has not challenged the legality of the order passed by the defendant under Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, but plaintiff filed suit for injunction restraining from demolition of the building. The suit filed by the plaintiff for injunction is maintainable, but entitlement of the relief is subject to establishment of the case by the plaintiff. As earlier discussed, the defendant has established the fact that plaintiff by violating sanction plan, put up construction on the schedule property. The plaintiff deviated from the plan and bye-laws. Further, the defendant established that notice under Section 321(1) has been issued directing the plaintiff to remove the deviated portion. When plaintiff fails to comply the notice, provisional order under Section 321(2) and confirmation order under Section 321(3) of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act has been passed. Further, defendant also established that notice/order passed under Section 321(1) and 321(3) of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act has been served in accordance with Section 455 of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act. The plaintiff fails to prove that notice/order passed by the defendant Corporation served on him. Therefore, plaintiff cannot restrain the defendant authority from proceeding in accordance with provisions of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act for removal of unauthorized construction or construction of the building by making deviation or violating building bye-laws. Therefore, for these reasons, this Court answers Issue No.3 in the Negative.