BENGALURU - 560 060 v. (BY SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
With this observation, writ petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
- Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 s. 15(4)
- Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 s. 33
Judgment
SRI. CHANNAPPA B.M, S/O MUNIHUCHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT BHEEMANAKUPPE, RAMOHALLI POST, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 060. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VASANTH KUMAR H.T, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU - 560 020, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, NO.2, SUB DIVISION, NAADAPRABHU KEMPEGOWDA LAYOUT DIVISION, NO.101/3 AND 102/2, BDA OFFICE, JNANABHARATHI LAYOUT, B.M. ROAD, KENGERI, OPP. METRO PILLAR-594, BENGALURU - 560 060. (BY SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENTS ARUNKUMAR M S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:50485 WP No. 33122 of 2024 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE SANKEY.BE.A.PRA/SA.KA.A-4/NPKL/710/2024-25 DATED
02.12.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the Impugned Notice dated 02.12.2024 (Annexure-J) issued by respondent-Bangalore Development Authority (for short, BDA) inter alia sought for consideration of the reply dated
05.12.2024 (Annexure-K).
2. Having taken note of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and further it is also submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, portion of the building belonging to the petitioner has been demolished by respondent-BDA and accordingly, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, the land belonging to the petitioner is to an extent of 10 - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:50485 WP No. 33122 of 2024 guntas, excluding the land being acquired by the respondent- BDA as stated in the endorsement dated 14.07.2017 and therefore, sought for interference of this Court.
Per contra, Sri. K.Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-BDA, invited the attention of this Court to the photographs at Annexure-H and submitted that, the petitioner herein constructing the building/sheds in a land, which is already acquired by the respondent-authorities.
In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the fact that the respondent-BDA has issued the notice under Section 15(4) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 read with Section 33 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 and in furtherance of the same, the petitioner has made representation reply dated 05.12.2024 (Annexure-K) and same is yet to be considered by the respondent-BDA, in that view of the matter, I am of the view that, both the parties are directed to maintain status quo insofar as the land in question, till the consideration of the reply dated 05.12.2024 (Annexure-K) by respondent No.2. It is also made clear that respondent No.2 shall consider the reply dated - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:50485 WP No. 33122 of 2024
Operative part
05.12.2024, within one week from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With this observation, writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE PK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2 CT: BHK
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: With this observation, writ petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227; Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 — s. 15(4); Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 — s. 33.
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.