1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI

WRIT PETITION NO.40561 OF 2015 (LB-BMP)

BETWEEN

SRI S.M.NARAYANA SA,

S/O LATE MUNISWAMY SA,

AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,

R/AT NO.21, 22, 1ST MAIN ROAD,

8TH CROSS, CHAMARAJPET,

BENGALURU - 560 018.

&PETITIONER

(BY SRI.RAJESH, ADVOCATE FOR

SRI G.S.VENKAT SUBBARAO, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.

THE COMMISSIONER,

BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,

N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 001.

2.

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,

CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU - 560 018.

&RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI K.N.PUTTEGOWDA, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN

RELIEFS.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

HEARING IN 8B9 GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE

FOLLOWING:

2

ORDER

Sri

Rajesh,

learned

counsel

on

behalf

of

Sri

G.S.Venkat

Subbarao

for

petitioner

and

Sri K.N.Puttegowda, learned counsel for respondents 1 and

2 have appeared through video conferencing.

2.

It is stated that the petitioner is the absolute

owner of the property bearing No.21 and 22 situated at 8^th

Cross, Chamarajapet, Bangalore together with a residential

building thereon measuring East to West 60'+ 15' x 13' x

10'/2 and North to South 269 + 389/2. It is stated that the

property was acquired by petitioner and his wife under a

registered sale deed dated 03.12.1981 from its earlier

owner V.M.Rahamathulla. The Khata certificate is also

issued in the name of petitioner.

It is averred that both the properties are adjacent to

each other and therefore he obtained two sanction plans to

put up construction in the year 2008 and as per the

sanction plan he is entitled to put up construction on the

property at the ground, first and second floors leaving the

3

required setbacks. He has completed the construction

immediately thereafter.

As things stood thus, the petitioner was constrained

to file a Civil Suit against his neighbor by name

Vinod Kumar in O.S.No.8584/2011 for declaration and

other relief and the suit is pending for consideration.

It is further averred that the corporation issued a

provisional and confirmation order under provisions of the

Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 ('the Act' for

short). The same was challenged before the Tribunal in

appeal No.831/2015 and an application for stay was also

filed. The Tribunal issued notice to respondents and

declined to pass any interim order. When things stood

thus, petitioner moved once again to consider for passing

of an interim order. However, on 07.09.2015, the Tribunal

declined to grant interim order.

Under these circumstances, left with no other

alternate or efficacious remedy, petitioner has invoked the

4

writ of jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227

of the Constitution of India.

3.

Learned Counsel for petitioner has urged

several grounds. Heard the contentions urged on behalf of

petitioner and respondents and perused the Annexures

with care.

While

addressing

the

arguments

counsel

for

respondents

submitted

that

the

appeal

is

pending

consideration before the Tribunal since 2015 and hence, an

appropriate direction may be issued to dispose off the

appeal as expeditiously as possible.

I find considerable force in the said submission. It is

not in dispute that the appeal is filed way back in the year

2015 and the Tribunal declined to issue an interim order in

the year 2015. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner

is before this Court.

5

It is needless to observe that the writ is filed in the

year 2015. This Court had granted interim order on

30.10.2015. We are in the year 2021. Therefore, in my

considered opinion, it would be appropriate to direct the

Tribunal to hear and pass suitable orders as expeditiously

as poss