1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI

WRIT PETITION NO.7698 OF 2015 (LB-BMP)

BETWEEN

SMT. V.PREMAVATHI,

AGED 38 YEARS,

HOUSE-WIFE,

WIFE OF SRI GOPALAKRISHNA,

RESIDING AT NO.68, 2^ND FLOOR,

4^TH CROSS, PATEL BALAPPA LAYOUT,

KORMANGALA ROAD,

ADUGODI, BANGALORE-560030.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI K.N.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE (ABSENT))

AND

1. THE COMMISSIONER,

BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,

N.R.SQUARE,

BANGALORE-560002.

2. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

B.T.M.LAYOUT SUB-DIVISION,

BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,

16^TH MAIN ROAD, BTM FIRST STAGE,

BANGALORE-560076.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI B.V.MURALIDHAR, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN

RELIEFS.

2

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE

FOLLOWING:

ORDER

This writ petition is filed seeking writ of certiorari or

any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the

order dated 16.02.2015 at Annexure-K.

2.

It is the case of petitioner that her father Sri T.

Veerabhadrappa gifted the property bearing No.3/1, PID

No.63-4703/1, 6th Main, Adugodi, Ward No.63, Bengaluru

in her favor under Gift Deed dated 06.05.2013. The

BBMP has issued a katha certificate and katha extract on

29.05.2013 in the name of petitioner. A sanctioned plan

was also issued on 01.07.2013.

3.

The petitioner started construction in the

property and when the construction was in progress in

respect of the ground floor of the said property, the

Assistant Executive Engineer - second respondent issued a

notice dated 13.11.2013 and also passed provisional order

under Section 321(1) and (2) of Karnataka Municipal

3

Corporations Act, 1976 at the instigation by neighbors

Smt.Sakamma and her husband Sri Kushal Shetty.

4.

The petitioner gave her reply to the notice

issued on 22.11.2013. Thereafter the second respondent

issued a confirmation Order under Section 321 (3) of the

Act on 23.11.2013. Challenging the confirmation Order,

petitioner preferred an appeal before the Karnataka

Appellate Tribunal at Bengaluru in No.1143/2013. The

appeal came to be dismissed. Hence, the petitioner is

before this Court challenging the order passed by the KAT.

5.

It is the contention of the petitioner is that the

Tribunal wholly erred in dismissing the appeal. The reasons

given by the Tribunal in support of its order are wholly

untenable. The reply to the notice given by the petitioner

to the notice has not been properly considered by the

Tribunal.

6.

It

is

further

contended

that

under

the

provisions of the KMC Act, it is the Commissioner alone

4

entitled to issue notice; in the present case, the notice has

been issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer under the

guise of delegation of power, but nothing is forthcoming

about

the

delegation

of

power.

The

Tribunal

has not considered the contentions urged on behalf of the

petitioner and has erroneously proceeded to dismiss

petition. Hence petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction.

7.

Per contra, Sri B.V.Muralidhar, learned counsel

for respondents justified the order passed by the Appellate

Tribunal.

Next, he submitted that the Appellate Tribunal

considered the matter in extenso and dismissed the

appeal. Therefore, he submits that the petitioner has not

made out any good ground to interfere with the order

passed by the Appellate Tribunal. Accordingly, he prayed

for dismissal of the petition.

8.

I have perused the pleadings and annexures

with care. The contention of the petitioner that she is the

owner of the property bearing No.63-47-3/1 and the

5

sanctioned plan is accorded by the respondent and katha

certificate is also given to her.

9.

The grievance of the petitioner is that the

second respondent without givin