SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Kar) 181

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Suraj Govindaraj, J.
Ramamurthy N, S/o N.Narasimhaiah - Petitioner
Versus
Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike And Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 22305 OF 2016 (LB-BMP)
Decided On : 24-03-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sri. T Prakash., Advocate
For the Respondent:Smt. Saritha Kulkarni., Advocate, Sri. N.K. Kantharaj, Advocate, Sri. Santosh Kumar, HCGP

Point of Law: Section 320 deals with application of Act relating to alterations and additions.

Headnote:

Municipal Corporation Act, 2000 - Section 321, (1), (3), 320 - Demolition of a portion of building - Widening of road - Issue direction quashing order and drop all proceedings in File on file of Respondent No.2 – There is no construction which has been carried out by petitioner but only an alteration in terms of repairing existing building - Para 10.

Finding of the Court: Admittedly, what has been carried out by petitioner is demolition of a portion of building on account of widening of road and thereafter repair works of demolished portion to make it usable - There is no particular allegation has been made against petitioner for having constructed anything more than what was available and or altering dimension of building - Therefore, in Court considered opinion, demolition work which was carried out for purpose of making building habitable and usable cannot be said to be an alteration which would come within purview of Section 321 of Act, but would come under proviso to Section 320 of Act - Said complaint is only to put State machinery in action to resolve dispute between petitioner and respondent No.4 - It would be well advised for Corporation to be careful in these situations and take necessary action in accordance with law and not to be used as a tool by a private party to settle private scores - Though Court could have imposed cost on respondent No.4, it refrains from doing so - Order by Karnataka Appellate Tribunal is set-aside.

Result: Petition allowed.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

a. Issue a writ of Certiorari or writ, order or direction if appropriate nature quashing the order dated 20.02.2016 in Appeal No.226/2011 (Annexure-J) on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore and consequently the order No.SKNA/KGHALLI/CO/2/2009-10 dated 18.05.2010 (Annexure-G) on the file of the Assistant Executive Engineer, Kadugondanahalli Sub-Division, Queens Road, BBMP, Bangalore, and drop all proceedings in File No.SKNA/KGHALLI/CO/2/200-10 dated 18.05.2010 on the file of the Assistant Executive Engineer (Respondent No.2)

b. Issue a Writ, order or direction of appropriate nature granting such other reliefs that this Hon’ble Court deems fit, in the facts and circumstances of the case, including the costs of the writ proceedings.

2. The petitioner claims to be owner of land covered under site No.3, in old survey No.140 of Nagavara village, a portion of the said land was proposed to be acquired by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike [BBMP] for the purpose of widening the existing Tannery road to 24 mtr width. It is in that background, a portion of the property measuring 8 mtr x 30 ft was given up in favour of the BBMP for widening. Thereafter the petitioner is stated to have demolished the said portion and plastered the remaining portion installing a rolling shutter.

3. The BBMP, on a complaint filed by the brother of the petitioner viz., respondent No.4, issued a notice under Section 321(1) of the Municipal Corporation Act [‘Act’ for short] contending that the petitioner has altered the premises without obtaining plan sanction which was followed by 321(3) confirmatory order which was challenged by the petitioner before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (KAT) in Appeal No.226/2011 which came to be dismissed on 20.02.2016. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court challenging the order of the KAT, as also 321(1) and 321(3) notice issued by the Corporation.

4. The submission of counsel for the petitioner is that a portion of the land was acquired by the BBMP in pursuance of which Transferable Development Rights were issued. The petitioner was called upon to demolish the portion acquired and it is in furtherance of the same, demolition took place and after the demolition of a portion of the building in order to make the building habitable, necessary works have carried out especially putting up a rolling shutter, the same is not an alteration and or construction, as such, he submits that there was no requirement of obtaining a plan sanction as contended by the BBMP.

5. The BBMP issued notices only on the basis of the complaint filed by the brother of the petitioner viz., respondent No.4. There being a partition suit which is pending between the petitioner and respondent No.4, respondent No.4 is abusing the process of law and instigating the BBMP to take action against the petitioner. Therefore, he submits that this fact which was placed before the KAT has not been taken into consideration and the KAT has wrongly come to a conclusion that a plan sanction and building licence is required for repairing the building and or demolition of the building which is incorrect, more so in terms of the letter dated 9.9.2010 at Annexure-E issued by the Executive Engineer, Road Widening Division-3, wherein the said Executive Engineer has categorically stated and permitted the petitioner to go ahead with the demolition of the building as desired for reconstruction. On that basis the petitioner submits that the petition is required to be allowed and the order passed by the KAT requires to be quashed, as also notices issued and order passed be quashed.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 would submit that the petitioner is not the absolute owner of the property, there being a partition suit which is pending, the petitioner cannot file the present writ petition. The petitioner has no locus and the Corporation has rightly taken action un

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top