SHAIKH SHABBAR v. BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE

Digitally signed by VIDYA G R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

4. MOHAMMED ZAHID SHAIKH S/O SHAIKH SHABBAR, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS ALL THE PETITIONERS ARE RESIDING AT NO.82, K.V.LAYOUT, 30TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR, 4TH BLOCK, EAST, BENGALURU-560 011 PETITIONER NO.1 REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER PETITIONER NO.4 (BY SRI. RAJESWARA P N., ADVOCATE) … PETITIONERS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11997 WP No. 25614 of 2019 AND:

1. BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002.

2. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R.SQUARE, J.C.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 002

3. JOINT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH) BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, 2ND BLOCK, 9TH CROSS, 9TH MAIN, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 011

4. A.M.SRINIVASA PRASAD S/O LATE MUNINARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT NO.92, "RAVI DARSHINI", 3RD MAIN, DOLLARS LAYOUT, J.P.NAGAR, 4TH PHASE, BENGALURU-560 078

5. J.M. JAYALAKSHMI D/O LATE MUNIYELLAPPA, W/O M. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO.1526, 17TH MAIN ROAD, J.P.NAGAR, 2ND PHASE, BENGALURU-78 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHRIHARI K., ADVOCATE FOR R5; SRI H. DEVENDRAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; NOTICE TO R4 DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 24.06.2019) THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER BEARING NO.BBMP/PSR(4)/2376/2015-16 DATED 9.5.2019 PASSED BY R-2 [ANNEXURE-A] AND ETC. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11997 WP No. 25614 of 2019 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER The petitioners have sought for setting aside of the order at Annexure-'A' dated 09.05.2019 passed by the Commissioner, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) whereby a finding is recorded that the complaint dated 17.07.2013 was obtained by "misrepresenting the factual aspects" and by playing a "fraud" and accordingly, sanction has been cancelled and revoked. By the same order, the construction work was ordered to be stopped. The Joint Director of Town Planning and concerned Executive Engineer was to take suitable action accordance with law. Certain other observations have been made in the said order.

2. Without entering into the merits of the matter, the brief facts which may be relevant for disposal of the writ petition is that the plan sanctioned was called in - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11997 WP No. 25614 of 2019 question by the petitioners on various grounds and order has been passed in enquiry proceedings regarding the finding that grounds were made out to revoke the plan, but however, the order was passed without hearing the petitioners.

3. Sri Srihari. K, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.5 (private respondent) submits that once the statement of objections is filed, as admitted by the petitioners, it was the look out of the petitioners to have been present on all the dates of hearing and it cannot be asserted that there must be notice on every date of hearing.

4. Heard both sides. Perused the order sheet of proceedings at Annexure-'A'. It is noticed that on

03.11.2018, the Commissioner, BBMP had directed issuance of fresh notice to the respondents, i.e. the petitioners herein. It is submitted that notice appears to have been issued on 15.11.2018 as per Annexure-'Z' showing the date of hearing as 17.11.2018. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11997 WP No. 25614 of 2019

5. It is the case of petitioners that notice was dated 15.11.2018 showing the date of hearing as

17.11.2018 and copy of notice is marked only to Sri K.G.Lakshmipathi and Associates as well as Sri V. Krishnamurthy and no notice was marked petitioners herein affording opportunity of hearing before the Authority.

6. There is force in the said submission and notice does not appear to have been marked to the petitioners herein. Even otherwise, the notice is dated 15.11.2018 showing the date of hearing as 17.11.2018. It is not clear as to whether such notice is served. There is no material indicating service of notice on petitioners herein that is placed before the Court.

7. Taking note that the litigation between the parties including the civil suit and consequences that would flow from the impugned order, it would meet the ends of justice by affording another opportunity to the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11997 WP No. 25614 of 2019 petitioners to appear before the concerned Authority to participate in the proceedings.

8. In light of the above observations, the order at Annexure-'A' dated 09.05.2019 is set aside. The matter is remitted for fresh consideration from the stage of arguments.

9. Upon appearance of petitioners, the petitioners to furnish list of purchasers of the apartments with particulars and it is for the respondents herein to take steps to implead the apartment holders, as eventually it is the purchasers who may have to face the brunt of adverse orders.

10. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off. All contentions are kept open.

11. The petitioners herein are not to seek any unnecessary adjournment and facilitate the Authority to complete the proceedings at the earliest. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:11997 WP No. 25614 of 2019

12. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 has sought further directions to restrain BBMP from giving any further documents in light of the dispute on hand.

13. Learned counsel appearing for respondent- BBMP submits that the question of giving any further documents including the Occupancy Certificate would not arise till the present issue reaches the logical finality.

14. The petitioners appear before Commissioner, BBMP on 05.04.2025 at 11.30 a.m. without waiting for any further notice.

15. I.A.No.1/2025 for appointment of Court Commissioner is disposed of as not calling for any orders, in light of disposal of the writ petition. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VGR