1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

WRIT PETITION.NO.30268 OF 2016 (LB-BMP)

BETWEEN

1.

SRI. A. V. DHARANESH KUMAR

AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

S/O. LATE A.N. VAJRANNABHAIAH,

2.

SRI. S. VIVEK ANIKAR

AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

S/O. LATE A.V. SURESH,

SITE NO.6, VARADHAMANYA BLOCK,

K.G.NAGARA, KARANIKAR ROAD,

BANGALORE-560 014.

...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. M.VIJAYAKRISHNA BHAT, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.

THE COMMISSIONER

B.B.M.P., N.R. SQUARE,

BANGALORE-560 002.

2.

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

B.B.M.P., KEMPEGOWDA SUB-DIVISION,

J.C. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 002.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. B.V.MURALIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE JUDGMENT

DTD. 19.3.2016 IN APPEAL NO.433/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE

KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE A COPY OF WHICH IS

PRODUCED AT ANNX-H AND ETC.

2

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

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

FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The petitioners are before this Court under

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India,

praying for a writ of certiorari to quash judgment

dated 19.03.2016 in Appeal No.433/2014 on the file

of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, whereby the

confirmation order passed by the respondent-BBMP

under Section 321(3) of the Karnataka Municipal

Corporations Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act’) is

confirmed.

2.

Heard Sri.M.Vijayakrishna Bhat, learned counsel

for the petitioners and Sri.B.V.Muralidhar, learned

counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the writ

petition papers.

3

3.

Sri.M.Vijayakrishna Bhat, learned counsel for the

petitioners would submit that the petitioners are the

owners in possession of property/site bearing No.6,

Varadhamanya Block, K.G.Nagara, Karanikar Road,

Basavanagudi,

Bengaluru,

Ward

No.142.

The

petitioners

constructed

commercial-cum-residential

building on obtaining sanction plan dated 11.11.2011

from the respondent-BBMP. Further it is submitted

that at the instance of third party, the respondent-

BBMP initiated action under Section 321 of the Act

alleging that construction is in deviation/violation of

sanction plan and provisional order under Section

321(1) of the Act was passed on 24.04.2014, to which

the petitioners submitted their reply on 29.04.2014.

Thereafter, confirmation order was passed under

Section 321(3) of the Act on 07.05.2014. Aggrieved

by the confirmation order dated 07.05.2014, the

petitioners preferred statutory appeal before the

4

Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore under Section

443-A of the Act. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal

(for short ‘the KAT’) dismissed the appeal filed by the

petitioners

under

impugned

judgment

dated

19.03.2016 confirming the order passed by the

respondent-BBMP under Section 321(3) of the Act.

Challenging the said judgment dated 19.03.2016 in

Appeal No.433/2014, the petitioners are before this

Court in this writ petition.

4.

Learned

counsel

for

the

petitioners

would

contend that the petitioners have constructed the

building in question in accordance with the sanction

plan dated 11.11.2011. Further, he submits that the

respondent-BBMP failed to consider the objections

filed by the petitioners and the construction is in

accordance with the sanction plan as well as Building

Bye-Laws of the Corporation. It is further submitted

that the construction of building is made by obtaining

5

loan and as such it would cause great hardship to the

petitioners if the confirmation order is upheld.

Further, learned counsel for the petitioners contends

that the Commissioner is empowered to take action

under Section 321 of the Act, whereas action is

initiated

by

the

Assistant

Executive

Engineer.

Therefore, he submits that action of the respondent-