The court emphasized the importance of providing an opportunity to rectify alleged violations before issuing orders for removal of constructions.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Heard learned counsel Smt. Deepashree for the petitioners, learned counsel Sri. Subramanya R for respondent No.3 and learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1,

2. and 4. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are the owners in possession of Khatha No.11/12 P.I.D.No.577, 15/16 P.I.D.No.584, 12/13 P.I.D.No.578, 14/15 P.I.D.No.582, 12/13 P.I.D.No.580 and 16/17 P.I.D.No.585 (Annexure-P). On obtaining permission under Annexure-P dtd. 21/1/2016, the petitioners proceeded to renovate the existing building in the land in question.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that without there being any notice or without initiating any proceedings in accordance with law, impugned notice dtd. 11/5/2016 is issued directing the petitioners to remove the northern and western portion of the construction, since it is contrary to C.D.P., within seven days. Notice also indicates that if the petitioners fail to remove the northern and western portion of the construction, the respondents would initiate action under Sec. 303 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act').

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the notice is in the nature of order and without providing an opportunity and without indicating the violation and without affording an opportunity to rectify the deviation, if any, the respondent No.3 could not have directed the petitioners to remove the northern and western portion of the construction, alleging the violation of C.D.P.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel Sri. R. Subramanya would submit that the construction is not in accordance with the permission granted under Annexure-P dtd. 21/1/2016. He further submits that permission letter empowers respondent No.3-Authority to take action, if there is violation of approved plan. Learned counsel would also point out that the petitioners have not left road margin from National Highway in terms of C.D.P. Therefore, it had become necessary for respondent No.3 to take action against the petitioners. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

6. Admittedly, petitioners were permitted to renovate in terms of permission letter dtd. 21/1/2016 (Annexure-P) on certain terms and conditions. If there is violation of any terms and conditions of license or permission letter or violation of C.D.P. or violation of approved building plan, it is always open for the respondent No.3-Authority to initiate action in terms of provisions of the 1976 Act.

7. On perusal of impugned notice dtd. 11/5/2016 (Annexure-R) would indicate that the notice is in the nature of order and it is not a notice calling upon the petitioners to submit reply. The notice would direct the petitioners to remove northern and western portion alleging construction not in accordance with C.D.P. Before issuance of such direction, the petitioners ought to have been provided with an opportunity by initiating action in accordance with law. Since, the notice would not also indicate the violation or deviation from C.D.P. or what is the violation by petitioners and since the notice would not furnish the details with regard to the violation and as it is not in terms of initiation of any proceedings, I deem it appropriate to quash the same with liberty to respondent No.3 - Authority to initiate proceedings in accordance with law, if respondent No.3 - Authority finds any violation. Hence, the following:

ORDER

a) Notice bearing No.hv/Z ((THELAW))J/Dg-610/2015-16 dtd. 11/5/2016 (Annexure-R) is quashed;

b) Respondent No.3 is at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings against the petitioners, if there is any violation in construction of building, in pursuance to Annexure-P permission letter dtd. 21/1/2016.