SMT.ANJULAMMA v. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
[A] The petition is disposed of permitting
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 s. 248(3)
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. This Court must enable a just and reasonable consideration without precipitation, and this will be if the petitioner undertakes not to put any construction or improvement in the subject property until there is a decision on such application, and the - 6 - NC…
Case journey
Linked proceedings
Writ Petition No. 3653 of 2023
This judgmentBuilt from judgments in the Courts & Cases corpus and the links detected in their text. Coverage is incomplete — earlier or later proceedings may be missing, so verify against the official record. How Case Journey works
Judgment
(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, LEARNED SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. BATHE GOWDA K.V.) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF IDNIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04/02/2023 IN APPEAL NO.231/2022 OF THE R-1 I.E. ANNEXURE- A; QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING BRU.BEM.MA.PAA/YA.VA/SA.KAA.AA/V.UU.VEE/C. O./01/2022-23 DATED 07/11/2022 OF THE R-3 I.E. ANNEXURE-B. THIS FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: PETITION, COMING ON CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner is aggrieved by the Confirmation Order dated 07.11.2022 [Annexure-B] under Section 248(3) of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 [BBMP Act] and the dismissal of the appeal in No.231/2022 dated 04.02.2023 [Annexure-A']. The Confirmation Order dated 07.11.2022 is on the ground petitioner has completed construction without even a sanctioned plan. This - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:52647 WP No. 3653 of 2023 Court vide order dated 29.10.2024 has called upon the respondents to place on record whether the construction by the petitioner would be in accordance with the prevalent Byelaws/Zonal Regulations, and the jurisdictional Assistant Executive Engineer has filed this Report dated 12.12.2024 furnishing the details of the construction.
Sri. Unnikrishnan M., the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri. Vikram Huilgol, the learned Senior counsel for the BMBP and its Officers, are heard in the light of the Report dated 12.12.2024 filed in compliance with the order dated 29.10.2024. The jurisdictional Assistant Executive Engineer has stated inter alia that the Zonal Regulation permits commercial construction along the subject road and that the petitioner has constructed a commercial building but contrary to the Byelaws in terms of the setback. - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:52647 WP No. 3653 of 2023
Sri. Unnikrishnan M. submits that the petitioner may be permitted to file an application under Section 240(8) of the BBMP Act within a reasonable time and direct the authorities to consider the same for appropriate approval subject to penalty deferring coercive measures pursuant impugned orders. Sri. Vikram Huilgol submits that the petition indeed could be disposed of but without prejudice respondents' case construction, which is contrary to the Byelaws, must be removed by the petitioner and that the petitioner, during the pendency of the consideration of the application, cannot put up any further construction.
These submissions narrow down question for consideration viz., whether, if the petitioner could indeed avail the benefit under Section 240(8) of the BBMP Act in the light of the allegation the construction is without a - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:52647 WP No. 3653 of 2023 sanctioned plan, and if the petitioner could file such application, the parameters for considering the same.
It remains salient that it could be open to the petitioner, notwithstanding her case that plan was obtained from the erstwhile Local Authority, can apply under Section 240(8) of the BBMP Act and that such application can be considered to see whether the petitioner can bring the construction accordance with the Byelaws but subject to payment of penalty as is prescribed. Therefore, the first question is obviously answered in favour of the disposal of the petition permitting the petitioner to file an application under Section 240(8) of the BBMP Act.
Operative part
This Court must enable a just and reasonable consideration without precipitation, and this will be if the petitioner undertakes not to put any construction or improvement in the subject property until there is a decision on such application, and the - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:52647 WP No. 3653 of 2023 respondents are directed not to take any coercive measures for implementing the impugned orders unless the application is considered in terms of this direction Hence, the following: - ORDER [A] The petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to file an application under Section 240(8) of the BBMP Act for plan with the concerned directing the consideration of the same, within six [6] weeks from the date of receipt thereof, in accordance with law but without prejudice to the respondents’ regards required compliance with the Byelaws and the liability to pay the penalty. [B] The petitioner shall file this application within six [6] weeks from today and shall not undertake any construction or - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:52647 WP No. 3653 of 2023 improvement in the subject property until such application is decided. [C] The respondents are directed not to take any coercive measures pursuant to impugned orders unless application is considered in terms of this direction. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE RB
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: [A] The petition is disposed of permitting
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 — s. 248(3).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.