1
{:3
I1--
IN THE HIGH COURT SF KHRNETAKH AT BANGALORE
nnwnn THIS THE o4"'nmx or APRIL 2908
BEFORE
THE HDN'ELE MR.JUSTICE N.KUMRR
nzsunan smcoun APPEAL no.2455x2oc5Tj {; ‘
BETWEEN:
MREEERBHMED
3:0 AEDULKAREEM uALguA;fi v_
53 VEARS, occ AGRICULTURE,’
REG ¥I¥EK%HAHEA CQLDMY »~
UERBER GHLLI, ‘
-n.
‘ISHFER
I
MEHncoBaaB_=–, 1- V’;
are nMEEMAsnafNAn£wALE’
an YEHR${LOC$ AGRICUhTUEfifq
wowwmmmawmm @
nhnann mantra
§1JAPUR.f3 “*”
u”T£.L’s!n s§3u1v:s.fiEsA1
54 $5335, o c AERJCULTURE
ax’ v:#3K%mAfluA;:ogGsv
nnannn aRLLI,* =
_mUKUfin aHv
‘j,3Nnjn3mncafi3nnA xunxmnnx
~. 45 ?EHBfi;,DCC AGRICULTURE
‘_H£o vivaxaunmnn CDLDNY
flARfiAR*flhbLI,
gxansua
$BH¥%$flGEPPA
“«$io BASAFPA’HEEEALLI
fifi ?Rfi, GEC HERICULTURE
Rffl VIVEEANANDA
DERBRR GFLLI, EI firbfi
ERIKEHT
i3Y
AND .
3J0 GHNGHYAY HDTIMATH
45 YEARS, om: AGRICULTURE
HID VIVEEHNANDA COLONY
nnnunn (:3. 1′
Jau1n.u.r1..n. -941 .1.
BIJAPUR
|’.f.
HH }
K R Eflflflflflh MEDEGflR
55 VERRS, OCC fiGfiififiLTUfiE
RIO VIVEKENKHDA CDLONY
DARERR GRLLI,
EIJHPUR
HHT LEKMI
K30 EHmNTB5OUDh DE3BI.7-_
95 YERRS; DEC SER¥1CE ‘ ‘
R50 vivnxnnanna conomv V
HAREfiR.$ALLI, BIJ%PUR
.~;-mi -.5 E HEEBALL1 .5 3- If!
u
1
‘ K?
. f-.-5;: _?f’1:115RS;”~ O€3t2 PE!-IISIONER 1’2»:-:17: “*
” V ,.w.;~”Te:’-V GALLI ,
nR’nnflAF§fiufl ‘_ , S
“Mr: n V
55 *§mARs,’n::r; “SUF’J3E?’C*,!§ . _’
EJO’MhhhIfiAEJUN’flE%%E.
an-U -r1Lv\r!P.
lIo.l’Jf’\l”zJI’\;’, ‘,
U%..’cI:iHH.ABA3A?P?. PATIL
– ‘%smmR% *
V1.3-mv~.*1’~”1.=; or mnmcram
H? EEFUTY EQHISSIONER
, $31 Jmun
Jmua nzvnnomnw-r AUTHORITY
E? 1T5 Cfififilfifilflfifi
Eflfl EIJAPUR
Y!
5r
CITY HUHICIPRL COUNCIL
BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
\/
.’- Q _2§r1~.zLuA:§’TAs
UHC BIJBPUR
5 flRDAPEER ABDUL AJIJ MUSRIFF
?§ YR5, DES KETD KSRTC DFFICER
RID NEAR PDJ HTGH SCHOOL PLAY GROUND
$391 Kfilflflflfi flAE%R
ERRERR GALLI,
EIJAFUR
‘-4|
nmwAn.MKHmaao3 nznannxnn
35 YRS, occ PHOTHGRAPHER I “., ,
RED ALI RDZA, NEAR KHEDIGRHMUHY G 1.
BIJAPUR ‘« I
3 manna Hnnnnn xHmnAnsAH $fi3An1§F,_v.:
42 %, (ICC BUSINESS ‘ ‘-
Rio HAVELI QALLI ,
EIJAPEIR A
9 ansnvnmwan MALLAPPA’MBflKR: .
an Yfifi, fififi*R AK fiU3fiIFF*gy
Rio EflWVEL:’SfllLLI 3 ‘ v “v*
BIJA?UR_ ; ;*V . ‘ “W
in smug usuauxagu Ph$Hfifl«. ”
33 YRS; mac Busxflzss ”
niu_nAnaAR.mauL1,,*q
HEAR nawnz Ma$gu3 *.°
aIaA?uR’% ‘ ‘ *.’r
11 IPAPPA BFERPPE ICKTTIHANI I3 KUMBAR
é? vns, act ausziass
. ‘fif0:BEE&T EALU1″
.’nJn Eu3:,v,
12 fALLfiré§_$1MANuA GOLLAR
$7 Y%3;”flCC BUSINESS
RIO HQRRANKERI, BAGALKDT ROAD
‘nTa1JA9un
“~ .. naspeunzuws
-«:53 EET VIJETHE R HAIR, %nv FOR CIR1:
THIS R3)’; 13 FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST
uTHE JUDGEMENT 5 DEGREE ETD §5.fi§.?5fi5 RRSSED
LL,/%
E”.§§:fianant injunction.
IE3 R..Pu.. NU -§fi.¢”‘2005 ON THE F1 DE OF THE PRESIDING
BFFI CEIFL. FAST TRACE IQQLIRT-1 I , El JAEUE, D1 53-11 551%!!!-
TH”E~ ..|3|sPPFu5t.L AND COEIFI RMI N13 THE JUDGHEENT AND
BEQREE DTQ 22.02.2003 PASSED IR 53 NO.393f2Q$G
QM THE FILE OF THE II }-‘L’DflL.CIIVIL JUDGE (SR.DEJ_.’}..
13:1″? 1591
D.i.U I’M} :-
zrms APPEAL comnrs on FOR AnM1ssI”e§:.vijf:ii:i% ‘ ‘
DRY, THEE CCIURT DELIVERED THE FOLI.aQH:’ING:.”‘””
This is a plaintiffs’ 1’é;-ééangs au’;;:;:’.o a.’..– -I
the concurrent :Einc.*.i.:1:«g’~5A_ éfiurts
below that the c:cnnstrur.°’tV:i.§:§r1″ put up
by than r3aasfandagnt~$$ »:.4y.a uygontrary to
law and mat :23.’ land as shown
in than Cc=nLg2.:a{h’e;r§s:§Ii*§re. I3¢£1rai<ipme.r:t'§ Plan.
:2. .Féjr__ " 1.-.né_ "g~nr;}&._2se ms
Tvhe-.LA«:3:iaintif£s have film the suit in an
"' :?'. '~fg§p;ae=ai$t.é5:iva capacity in than public interest.
"'–§r'ig%i:r..:$11y it was filed far that ralief or
suhaquantly, it was
».._ ¢-anv-arrt:'asfl for the relied? of mandatory injunctiorg
/
6/
=«';itigation
'the
.5.
and fbr the other reliars. The case at the
plaintiffs is they are all residents of
vivakananda calony’ in Bijapur situated in fluid
Na.5. The defendants 1 and 2, who are the gfifitfifi; f
nf GT3
r-:a.e41xaxmxm/wwmwwa. ‘VThejj’~.:i”;’; L
defendant is a Surgaon and twfi3*tg5tGq#§Enmtnt;xt
amplayaa. Tha 2″ defendant vat a tétitfifi fiflhlififft
grasacutar and now an Aflvficata “kg vgtafésfiiani
The vittkananda cgtgny _mi§-_Hga;mQrt;gHf
Hula-3 :4-a.1\+-4 :31 s-Inna-Irina. ” 4 n.’- 3′
a..1’a-on-.1.-a’auuava..-E-1.4. y\4.a.§vviI’fi ‘ ‘ J’…~|.l -K 5-.u’i7
Flafi2 ,fiftaf
canstructianrHiQh§tfi_f§3$€t§n_:tt§’ §féresaid site,
dafanfiantw i.afifi Q i§vtxSté:ta@ to put up a naw
canstructiafit§idVtttyt§fié_cofittructing a Hbspital
or a filinit,’.[¥§i§hmE”ié injurious to the
inhabitants fir thé fiiiékananda Colony where the
;téuit-fiEo§arwg is sitauteu and they have sat out
it fifitatl the tonsaquancas which wuuld fluw in
tt= , futfir¢’if Q Hpépital is run in the said prnparty.
Vt,__Ip ftut}: vthey had filed public interest
present suit is
/1′
apprmral… which the defendants have obtained, is
centrary te Lew and the result at’ collusion and
therefunre, they filed the suit for injunetiieh.
initially. as during the pendency
proceedings the defendants eompietecii.
construction, the plaintiffs cf§eEi¥tertat2_
and glaint was annendee te
mandates}: iI’:juI:t;’12.;¢;II!= D I A T AV
Cf euuimona
entereci a5Jg:e.m.*e::>-:9 written
ete’tement. _They putting up
eenstructieh the sanctioned
plan ants}: the cenetructian
Elf nu;u~sih’gVVV_heme 1 and 2 is legal
and tha-… same” hes’.v”beenéT.epproved, the running of
I-f’xt}:eA n”:.–;1.:’5.”s;?i..’i:sg1″e–hemeHid’d'”i:ot emit obnaxious small of
in the pleint and the suit is
file:’lj’1eit_h’te:.eiefide intenti-ens. The plaintiff
w . _ . _ . . ._ —-.—–rv-
Viit~-.___f».%<;_I..5 w'i*:cu"'g_ 13 a neighbour has crnnstrlmftfid his
A 4.1-. e-
«titeitrge-se en the amen wmpeund wall end in we.–..
I’
A
‘~teq£:rai dietute erase and tuu.t-efere, he has
3 ii-seerecii the suit ii’: “an name of others. They
have else set: taut: the various provisions of law
\”|L//
D?’
under which their construction is legal and
valid .
.5. The Trial Court framed as
irsue.-3. The 1″‘ plaintiff was examined M
2′? do-rzumemtzz were marked as Exv§.mP’1’«1;c?–,_2TF”:A§:2§dVV:vh’é«’
alao axaminad 3 witnnas. the
Mmmirmd ag LIL1 and 9.r.*edI.i-:.°~afi”~~..%1£
In. The “fr:i4._a1V_. of the
Hfarwaifi ¢§.a.l§’–.:.§iririé’hca on record
held the ” Suing put up by
th-ii 1a§,:.q:f:”-..V___’i.lj,a.gal, there in no
c<:1J.u:s:i.<.:n '.;;et:ww§"A:-Li::e§tfe&§'§;iaiits 1 and 2 and the
other ,':–.~£':E'L:i.~::J'. él.#,'~~.*'.:h«e"'- gfiiaintiffs have failed to
I-': {ir'»ave"':r«..3t;r1:evir"~–_casr: ""aiid therefore, they are not
».41'5::-§";.;siacrna of mandatary er parmanent
§..Ih':[l..'lIE5f.£if:iC£J3.'#2:§if5'§;":;t13U5 it dismissed the suit: of the
g5la;nt.'.iJ_3.f3 AggL';-\!t!IIt.i tr,-r the sI…J..c:!. jI.:dgr1n_-nt anrl
"'4r:jc$iJ'rt on reappraciatian of the entire avitianca cm
wracarci and after formulating the points for
\u/
V
consideratian has agreed with the findings
mccmssiad try the Trial court find cliamizssad the
appaa.1. Aggriavad by than two concurrajfiti
findings the plaintiffa are in an-sand appea;l_.,._'44'_»i:"*Q"?
7. sri.s.3.Habba11i, 1earnea”ceupgaL fér finds’
agapallanta: aaaailing the i:n,;:au<;j'n_ae::i._ii'_jiucli<;_:'t::»,<%Aa'rxtV
– dacraa of the caurta: baloié-ifogjterihciagfi,’
1¥&i.r.;A pm; 9
the _ma 3119:; tn; dniendantn i»._a’n._.d. 2 9
cmsstrmticn is: a re§–:?;danti€%-1:. £~=§:-as.”–..as per the
Cfiwfilfi-.h1*:fifi1″é B”iffilfi”§I’l.ieu’f ‘Pl.-ii’). Ewan “‘ the
Gmrarnmant par EILD2
permitting ziuxsing harm and
hmspital: zaiixa, the. same being
contrgW ~._{‘§gv”””af the Karnataka Town
and countn§*;P1ahnin¢” Amt. 1955, still the
;j”VVt:»:1ns’t;’:C1ct;ivnni. flan “::’Li’i:”‘Vup Imuld be illegal. The
‘ajmly provide: for r.-hangs or land
uaéiaf-‘ti r;§:.fi’ViL?’;j:-é;’rmission to put up a hospital or an
iii~.._._’nL5:g:’sin«;_;.. xtgome in a residential zone. when
H , thug I;l_:c_mt_i«sIni:.s have gut up the
.9.
pl-aintiffes are entitled to decree Ior permanent
injunatian restraining tha defendants from
running a hospital or a nursing hams in the!
building, which they have cunstructed.
ii. Per contra, the laarna:L1″i”co!;ns’_§1_:.fi:t._
respondent smtnrijetha R.Nai}:_ 7..A_A_5i..ipp6rts.._
imgugmd jucigm-ant and dacrééLcafi_ that” r:_¢m;t5;_
in ::iispui:a. _V itfliiiti””¥-::anatruction.
After dem:ali:s.h:i§f$V~;.,t:’:.»» i.f:”ahsif;,rL’1ctian they have
PM ‘4’? have’ obtained a
sanction¢=V§’tfiVVV_p’1ain’ authority. A
perusaaai ., of Vigiian shows what they are
=’:”VV’§’«”‘?-‘.I’13’fé’;”A’;-5″‘~’=*<?ififi'i-A. ifia" "" "residential premises with an
;_:'e.z;fc:r*'ar;:i,'_:e.*J:2.t;n'i:xv4t_&;1:':.$i~..t_rpgnning a clinic. Thorofara, the
plat by the defendants is not far
'gI.gttin'g.. a nursing home or a hosgital. Both
" " . f_fIi."!"I.'.'I';;'i.:'ug 'UP it nLu.':i ng mi
G1.-
nmre nbteinenl a sanctioned plan for putting up
enly a residential premises and a clinic in the
residnntial premises, it does net v;i.e1.a1:eH
building regulations no: the provisions
aha,
Knrnateka ,Town and Country Planning
The Guurte below were ju:sti£ied»ii»Vi’n”heidztne’
the nrunnetrnt;-tien sen 5.11.11: 1.19 is J.eg,?al en:-.1 *’=.re3~.i5:a
’91’.-er.’e.!;’are, q.-.e.e..in.-. d granmfing en?’ decree e
…….«.u.h..-|-.n…..».. -: ….-in… mt.-I AS. A… ……1|..;L…’-13.: …I. ”j.-&.,. _…I .1
u.Leu.Iua§I…uJ.y 4. LJ Lul.I…I….l.U I. Lu 5.!!! ‘SJJ..¢-D13 Lh 58.1.8
nut arise.
10. __;nsn§e:1″.:_;:ee” of using the
gremisesfl en.1Aeii-“Vn;,1_it”‘ni1:g_””-_ne.me or a hospital is
cencerne::i;’…_i:he fiiienrlfiled even herons the
cnnstrncztioniéhwnnyciiit in “during the course of the
5 gnnnennyg gr _tne “nbnceedings the building is
-nniiess the gleintitfn actually plead
‘ what’ th.e’e”3miieance or inccmvenience caused am:
he new-n of use tn 1.-.*..ie.. t…-3 building is
e’*cueL.’..” put ta use and given e”ida’i-ca in aufipazt
“‘ the name. the question of nuisance er using of
bnil-riing for e purpaee other than what is
imnnt to -cann-at be gone in tea and decided by the
\|
“L/
.11.
court. Though mama evidence is adduced and the
Ccaurtae hava czansidarad the said issue as I stated
ear3.i.»ar, the suit was filad even before
canstmctinn of the building. The entire:.~~~~-i$f§L_.i_ie”.j’
was t-5.3 find out whether the constructivqfi’-..§ui.ifLiépiT
is illegal or not and it i3;’Jt1dnt:a«:y-;’f§§i’._tvhié7
cow:-ahansive Qavalapmant lilgng
cannct: be fiaund .t’ault.–_§.’it};,——– hagsa ‘-W… aétiafi
for an injunction 3;’-4t’,’:;:s§:i’3.ance’ is a
c-antireuing one._:” Memiigr’::’;b§:ca:;s.§’e..V’. this suit
injumzticm sgr_aa§’~.. issue was
a decree that would not
come in :tha__ §éy..–vg;_;”:’tha«4.:fii,;§i.nti.ffau filing cane more
suit and to adduce
mridenatge. in ufiugfipafit itafévithe said pleas. At: any
i’-‘W9;’~.t__’}ju3–.”vca3fi ffihi “” ‘interference on that aspect
.a%:’;’.u_i_::-‘:’:_T:i.”‘st. in this case. In that View of
tha.’m,§’tta£g”Vii:i.V_ ‘Be not find any error czommittacl by
‘£5-éiifiénti appaal, wniah merit admission. I-innca, the
appeal is diamissed reserving liberty as
aforasnid.
N6!”