(This W.P. Filed praying to direct to restrain the respondents from demolishing the scheduled property and Etc.)

The petitioner, having purchased the schedule immoveable property from his vendor in title by name N. Geetha, who, on securing a sanction of building plan and licence to erect a residential building, nevertheless, constructed a building for commercial use, has presented this petition for a writ of mandamus, to restrain the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, for short BBMP, from demolishing the said property.

2. The construction of the commercial building on a residential plot of land without change of land use, from residential to commercial, under the Karnataka Town and country planning Act 1961, for short KTCP Act, and contrary to sanction of building plan and licence exfacie, was illegal, let alone the use of the said building for commercial activity. The complaint of the petitioner’s neighbour over the illegalities, when not responded, led to filing W.P.19029-30/01, whence, a learned Single Judge of this court by order dated 19.6.01, Annexure B, disposed off the petition, recording the submission of the Learned Counsel for the 5th respondent-vendor in title of the petitioner, that the petition is rendered infructuous since a confirmation order under Sub.Sec.(3) of Sec.321 of Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, for short the Act, to remove the unauthorized structure, was served on the said respondent, and, the submission of the Executive Engineer(Elec.) Addl. South Division arraigned as the 4th respondent in the said writ petition, that an action plan was initiated to demolish the unauthorized structure erected contrary to the building plan.

3. The petitioner therein aggrieved by the order preferred WA 4321-22/01 whence the Division Bench by order dated 13th September, 2001 Annexure C, recorded the submission of the learned counsel for the Corporation as well as the 5th respondent that in view of the confirmation order under sub.sec.(3) of Sec.321 of the Act the BBMP had a duty to demolish the offensive portion of the building and directed thus:

“In the said view of the mater, no further order need be passed except to the extent that the Commissioner should ensure the carrying out of his order in accordance with law.”

4. It appears that the petitioner’s vendor in title undaunted by the orders, supra, instituted O.S.8454/01 along with an application under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 CPC for an order of temporary injunction restraining the Corporation from interfering with the plaint schedule property, none other than the schedule immovable property, whence the civil court by order dated 19.4.02. Annexure D temporarily restrained the BBMP from demolishing the building in question, pending disposal of the suit. In addition the petitioner’s vendor in title, preferred an appeal against the order of confirmation under sub.sec.(3) of Sec.321 of the Act, before the Standing Committee of the BBMP and obtained an interim order of stay of demolition, which was thereafter words dissolved by the State Government in exercise of jurisdiction under Sec.98 of the Act.

5. The petitioner’s neighbour by name M. Narayana, one of the petitioners in W.P. 19029-30/2001 and appellant in W.A. 4321-22/2001, having filed an application to be impleaded as a proper and necessary party in O.S.8454/01, on its rejection by the trial court, filed CRP No.3321/2003. This court by order dt.22.1.04, while rejecting the petition observed that the order of injunction would not come in the way of demolition of the structure.

6. The vendor in title, allegedly, having put to use the building for commercial activity, the said M. Narayana, filed W.P.318/06, arraigning the petitioner as Respondent No.6, whence, a learned Single Judge of this court by order dated 19.9.08 Annexure H held thus:

“4. Be that as it may, the fact remains that this court has observed in the revision petition that if the order of demolition is legal and in pursuance of