Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

14. On the very same footings the defendants also got marked the other documents. Among them Ex.D-6 is the copy of the absolute Sale Deed executed by the Karnataka Housing Board in favour of 2nd defendant. The ownership and possession of the 2nd defendant property is not in dispute. Ex.D-7 is the katha extract of the 2nd defendant property and Ex.D-8 is the katha certificate of her property. Ex.D-9 is the copy of the notice issued by the 1st defendant under Sec.321(2) of KMC Act. Ex.D-10 is the order came to have been passed since no reply has been given by these plaintiffs as contemplated under Sec.321(1) of the Act. Ex.D-11 is the copy of the inspection note is going to disclose that building constructed by the plaintiffs is all together contrary to the original permission and plan. There is deviation in basement floor, ground floor, first floor, second floor and third floor. Ex.D-12 is describing the area which has been divided by the plaintiffs while constructing the building. Ex.D-13 is the subsequent notice issued by the 1st defendant under Sec.321(3) of K.M.C. Act. Ex.D-14 is the order issued under Sec.462 of K.M.C. Act, there by directed the plaintiffs to remove the unauthorized construction. Accordingly BBMP Engineer has empowered to take necessary action in this regard. So the defendants documentary evidence going to reveal that the 1st defendant had taken lawful action against these plaintiffs for the reason of constructing the building by the plaintiffs against the building byelaws and sanctioned plan by deviating the same. So the defendants took the contention in the written statement itself that the suit before this Court is not at all maintainable since the plaintiffs have to approach the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal for redressal of their remedies. Under such circumstances, it is to be seen that whether the plaintiffs have to approach the concerned authorities prior to approach this Court for redressal of the remedy or not herein afterwards.

17. Against this, the learned counsel for the 1st defendant filed written argument and took the categorical contention that there is deviation in construction of the building by the plaintiffs. The plan took by the vendors vendor of the plaintiffs was lapsed on 23.4.2005 and without renewing the same the building was constructed in the suit property unauthorized, because the plaintiffs have no right to construct the building in the third floor as well as in the basement floor. The plaintiffs or their vendors vendor are only allowed to construct the building to the extent of built up area is 4206.08 sq.ft., but it was built to the extent of 13020 sq.ft. So, this is more than 100% deviation. Under such circumstances, on inspection of the property they have taken action by issuing notice as contemplated under Sec.321 of KMC Act and they have not relied to the said notice within time stipulated to them, later on said order was confirmed as contemplated under Sec.321(3) of KMC Act and order was passed to take action under Sec.462 of KMC Act. Under such circumstances, even though the defendants having no right, title and interest over the schedule property, they are eligible to take action against such persons whom have constructed the building contrary to sanctioned plan and permission by deviating it. On the other hand, after passing such an order as contemplated under Sec.321(3) of KMC Act, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction and they have to approach the concerned Appellate Tribunal for redressal of the remedy. Under such circumstances, 1st defendant prays for dismissal of the suit.

Sec.443-A. Appeal to Karnataka Appellate Tribunal or District Court - (1) Any person aggrieved by any notice issued, action taken or proposed to be taken by the Commissioner under Sections 308, 309 and 321(3) may appeal -
(i) in the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in case of the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike.

So, on perusing this provision of law, it is very much clear that whatever the notice issued under Sec.321(1) & (2) of KMC Act either upon the plaintiffs or anybody, who is doing construction of the building and if a confirmation order was issued under Sec.321(3) of KMC Act, then aggrieved party has to approach the concerned Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, which is having the jurisdiction. So, it is further revealed that efficacious remedy is available to the plaintiffs under the KMC Act 1976 itself, without exhausting such remedy, they are unable to approach the Civil Court. The dispute prevails in between the plaintiffs and defendants can be very well adjudicated under the provisions of KMC Act. Such being the case, even though the plaintiffs are owners in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, defendants not having any right, title or possession on that piece of property, when there is deviation in construction of the building by the plaintiffs in the suit property and the 1st defendant being the local administrative Body had passed such an order as contemplated under Sec.321(3) of KMC Act, the plaintiffs shall have to approach the concerned Appellate Tribunal. So, when the suit of the plaintiffs itself is not maintainable, question of granting remedy would not arise for consideration. That is why this Court is answered this issue No.1 in the Negative.

20. ISSUE NO.2:- For the above made discussions in the above said issues it is revealed that even though the plaintiffs are the owners in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, since the 1st defendant - Corporation is empowered to take necessary action upon them, in case there is deviation in construction of the building, for the present, it is also revealed to this Court that there is some deviation, accordingly the 1st defendant had taken necessary action within the four corners of law. The action taken by the 1st defendant would not be considered as illegal and unlawful act since the 1st defendant is discharging his functions within the four corners of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act 1976. Such being the case, the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as claimed. Hence, I answer this issue No.2 in the Negative.